Get a student's portfolio

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond that: include_details fires one detail request per artwork, which is explicitly noted as slower and should be avoided for lean tiles — a real performance tradeoff an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the return shape and then the actionable instruction. Every clause earns its place; the optional-flag caveat is compactly stated without repetition.

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 list tool whose annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete: it names the source of the required ID, enumerates returned fields for both modes, and flags the cost of the optional flag. Pagination or total-count behavior is unmentioned, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents both artist_id and include_details fully, including the default and the concurrency behavior. The description reinforces rather than extends this, adding only the 'slower' performance note and the recommendation to leave it off — marginal value over structured fields.

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+resource ('List a student's artworks') and enumerates the returned fields (artwork_id, is_private, thumbnail). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling artsonia_get_artwork by being the collection-level tool and routes the caller to artsonia_list_students for the required ID.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance by stating where artist_id comes from and giving a clear when/when-not for include_details ('leave it off when the lean tiles are enough'). It does not explicitly contrast the tool against alternatives like artsonia_get_artwork, so it falls just short of a 5.

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