PupilsGetDetail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as behavior for missing ids, response shape, or any special semantics. With no output schema, this leaves a gap.

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?

The description is a single eight-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource and earns every word.

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?

For a simple, annotated, read-only tool this is minimally viable, but 'details' is vague and there is no output schema or guidance on failure behavior. The absence of explicit alternatives and response expectations makes it adequate rather than complete.

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% but the property description 'integer (optional)' adds no real semantics beyond type and optionality. The tool description confirms pupilId is the identifying id, but that is already evident from the tool name, so no meaningful extra meaning is provided.

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 clear verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('details of a single pupil') and identifies the selection mechanism ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like PupilsGetList and PupilsGetCursorList.

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 'by id' phrase implies this tool is for fetching one specific pupil when its id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over PupilsGetList, PupilsGetCursorList, or other sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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