Student dashboard

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds high-level content expectations (school, grade, classes, teachers) but does not provide additional behavioral context such as default-student handling or authentication. It is adequate given the annotations and output schema, and it does not contradict them.

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, concise phrase — 'A student's school, grade, classes and teachers.' — with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 getter with one optional parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides enough high-level context about the returned data. The optional parameter behavior is delegated to the schema. It could be more explicit about the retrieval action, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The single parameter student_id is fully described in the schema ('Student id from list_schools. Omit for the default student.'), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly indicates the tool's resource — a student's school, grade, classes, and teachers — and is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_schools or get_staff_member. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', so it does not fully meet the highest bar of a verb-led purpose statement.

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 tool description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint ('Omit for the default student') lives in the parameter schema, not the description. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons.

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