alphaportal_get_student

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds useful return-behavior context by listing what the response contains: assigned school, stops, times, and calendars. It does not go deeper into auth requirements, failure modes, or response formatting, but the annotation already establishes the safety profile.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource first, then uses a colon to efficiently list the included details. There is no filler or redundant material.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main return categories, and the schema fully documents the required input. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from alphaportal_get_student_stops, but the tool is still callable without missing critical information.

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%: the single studentId parameter is fully described in the schema, including its source from alphaportal_list_students. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a student's full transportation detail,' and it enumerates the included content (assigned school, morning/afternoon stops, times, calendars). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the overlapping sibling alphaportal_get_student_stops, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The overlap with alphaportal_get_student_stops is especially relevant, yet the description never says 'use this for full transportation detail' or 'use get_student_stops for stops only.' The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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