alphaportal_get_student_stops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description does not need to state read-only behavior. The description adds the specific data returned (stop fields), which is contextual but not strictly behavioral. It does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, though read-only tools typically have minimal behavioral concerns.

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, focused sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists the return fields. There is no filler or redundancy; it earns its place entirely.

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 no output schema present, the description appropriately enumerates the return fields and implies multiplicity ('for each'). It does not specify the container type (e.g., array) or error cases, but for a low-complexity read-only tool with a single parameter, this is sufficient. The fields listed are comprehensive and unambiguous.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for studentId, including its source (alphaportal_list_students). The description adds no extra information about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage beyond what is already in the input schema, so it does not compensate beyond the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'a student's assigned bus stops', and enumerates the return fields (stop name, scheduled time, days, location). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bus_location (live tracking) and get_student (basic profile) without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use it (to fetch a student's assigned stops) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or specify when not to use it. For instance, it does not mention that get_bus_location should be used for real-time bus tracking instead. The reference to studentId from alphaportal_list_students implies a prerequisite but no exclusions.

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