alphaportal_list_students

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already assures a non-mutating operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by scoping results to 'the signed-in account'. It also reveals what data is included, helping the agent set expectations. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results, but for a simple zero-parameter list operation this is adequate.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The first defines the operation and outputs; the second gives actionable usage guidance. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, this description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it in the broader workflow. No output schema exists, but the description names the key fields, so an agent can proceed confidently.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per calibration, the baseline for zero params is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing param details.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('students (children)'), and the relevant scope ('on the signed-in account'). It also enumerates the returned fields (grade, school, transportation flags), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_student by clearly indicating this is the collection-level listing operation.

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?

'Start here to get each studentId' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool first and why. This provides clear usage context: obtain student IDs before using per-student tools. It implies the appropriate ordering without needing to list alternatives explicitly.

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