Get a student's fan club

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 only the return shape (name + relationship), which is modest but useful given there is no output schema. No auth, rate-limit, or privacy nuance for fan data is disclosed.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the input hint immediately after. Every clause 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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies both the action and the return fields. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents artist_id as the student identifier, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly further by specifying the provenance of the value (from artsonia_list_students), which is meaningful guidance the schema does not contain.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (fans in a student's fan club), and even previews the returned shape (name + relationship). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like artsonia_invite_fan or artsonia_list_students without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear procedural context: 'Pass the artist_id from artsonia_list_students,' which tells the agent how to obtain the required input and implies a chained workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming a true alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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