Get a student's portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the per-artwork detail-page fetch that makes include_details slower, and a security disclosure that returned text is third-party/untrusted and must not be followed as instructions. The prompt-injection warning is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the listing purpose, then usage and the parameter tradeoff, then the security note; every sentence carries information. Dense but not padded, though the inclusion of both the field list and the tradeoff makes it slightly heavy for a two-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in by naming the returned fields (both lean and detailed), and it covers the required-parameter source, the performance tradeoff, and the untrusted-content caveat. Nothing an agent needs 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by naming the origin of artist_id (artsnia_list_students) and by explaining the performance consequence of include_details, meaning the schema alone would not reveal. It does not add syntax beyond the schema, keeping it just above baseline.

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 and resource ('List a student's artworks') and enumerates the returned fields (artwork_id, is_private, thumbnail), which is more than a tautology. It references artsonia_list_students as the source of artist_id but does not explicitly contrast itself with single-artwork siblings like artsonia_get_artwork, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 clear, actionable routing: get artist_id from artsonia_list_students, and an explicit when/when-not tradeoff for include_details ('leave it off when the lean tiles are enough'). It does not state when this tool should not be used in favor of an alternative sibling, so it stops short of full guidance.

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