PupilsGetCursorList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail of cursor-based pagination, which is useful, but it doesn't explain ordering, page traversal (cursorAfterId/cursorBeforeId), or how filters like OnlyUpdated/OnlyUnchanged behave. Minimal added context beyond 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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and pagination style. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no description of how to page or what the response contains, the definition is under-specified. An agent cannot tell from the description how to correctly invoke cursor pagination or combine filters. The minimal purpose statement is not enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter semantics. The schema parameter descriptions are minimal ('string (optional)' etc.), and the tool description doesn't clarify the meaning or purpose of parameters like Search, OnlyUpdated, or UpdatedAfter. The description does not compensate for the thin schema descriptions, but per the baseline rule the score remains 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pupils') and adds the pagination mechanism ('cursor-based'), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling PupilsGetList. It is a specific, non-tautological statement of what the tool does.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as PupilsGetList or PupilsGetDetail. It doesn't mention whether cursor-based pagination is preferred for large result sets or discuss any filtering conditions. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is present.

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