alphaportal_get_student_stops

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the output fields, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as response format, ordering, or possible empty results. This is acceptable for a simple read-only lookup.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and then compactly lists the return contents. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what data will be returned. It is slightly incomplete only because it does not indicate when to prefer this tool over related sibling tools, but the low complexity and strong schema coverage make it otherwise sufficient.

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%: the only parameter, studentId, is fully documented in the schema as an integer sourced from alphaportal_list_students. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a student's assigned bus stops'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (stop name, scheduled time, days, lat/lng). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like alphaportal_get_bus_location, which would cover live bus location rather than assigned stops.

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 about when to use this tool compared to related siblings such as alphaportal_get_bus_location or alphaportal_get_student. The context is implicit from the name and description, but no explicit usage conditions or exclusions are provided.

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