School information

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral distinction that omitting paginaId returns per-child contact data while supplying it returns a single page, but it says nothing about pagination, volume, or whether a page list is itself returned on the first call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the parameter behavior, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does so at a high level (contact data per child; page topics and documents). It stops short of describing the fields of the contact data or the page list itself, which leaves a modest gap for a no-parameter list call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the parameter: a single page with its topics and documents. It also clarifies provenance of the id ('page list of a previous school_info call'), reinforcing the two-call sequencing pattern.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource clearly - school contact data per child plus published information pages - and distinguishes the two modes (list vs single page). It is weakened by the absence of an explicit verb (fetch/read) and by the cryptic phrase 'contact data per child', but an agent can still tell what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the activation condition for the parameter ('Pass paginaId for one page with its topics and documents') and explicitly routes to siblings for adjacent needs ('Use teachers for staff and children for mentors'). No explicit statement of when not to use it, but the alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.