Find Student Across Courses

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true) are supplemented by rich behavioral details: concluded courses are included by default, max_courses bounds scanning with most-recent-term-first ordering, truncated is set rather than silently dropping courses, and failed courses are skipped and listed in courses_failed. This goes far beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense, purposeful sentences. Each sentence delivers distinct value: scope and outcome, parameter options, and edge-case handling. No filler or repetition, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return concept (every matching course with enrollment state and last activity) and covers important behaviors (truncation, failed courses, defaults). The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the three parameters, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: default values for include_concluded and max_courses, the ordering (most recent term first), truncation flag behavior, and per-course error reporting. This substantially enhances parameter understanding.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the caller's teaching courses'), and includes scope (active and concluded) plus result details (enrollment state, last activity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_users or list_students, which operate on different scopes.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool: to find a student by name/login/email across the caller's teaching courses, with defaults and flags (include_concluded, max_courses). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' level.

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