Get a student's awards & activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the result (current-year badges with name, earned status, criteria, and progress, plus prior-year badges), which tells the agent what data comes back. It omits pagination or any rate-limit/auth caveats, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, no filler: the first states the resource and return contents, the second states the required input and where to get it. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-value inventory an agent would otherwise lack, and the annotations cover safety. Nothing critical is missing, though the absence of pagination/scope notes leaves a small gap.

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% and the single parameter already documents its source (from artsonia_list_students). The description repeats that same fact without adding format, validation, or fallback detail, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the baseline 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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (Artsonia awards/achievement badges) and enumerates the returned fields, which is well beyond a restatement of the title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as artsonia_get_activity or artsonia_get_portfolio, which the title's phrase 'awards & activities' could confuse an agent about.

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 only guidance is the parameter prerequisite: 'Pass the artist_id from artsonia_list_students,' which usefully points at the upstream tool. It says nothing about when to choose this tool over artsonia_get_activity or artsonia_get_portfolio, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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