alphaportal_list_students

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to restate non-destructiveness. It adds value by disclosing the return fields (grade, school, transportation flags) and the purpose of retrieving studentId. However, it doesn't provide deeper behavioral context like pagination or data freshness—acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a clear directive for use. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the exact scope, the fields returned, and the primary use case. No critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the calibration baseline for 0 params, the description doesn't need to explain parameters, and no gaps exist.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('students (children) on the signed-in account'), and specific attributes ('grade, school, and transportation flags'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_schools or list_grades, and from get_student, which targets a single student.

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 instruction 'Start here to get each studentId' explicitly frames this as the entry point for student-related workflows, giving clear context on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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