List followed students

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 useful context by listing the fields that come back, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens when the account follows no students.

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 returned-field inventory comes first and the cross-tool role of artist_id is front-loaded as the actionable takeaway.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description's field list is the only disclosure of return shape and it covers the essentials (identity, school, grade, counts). Slightly incomplete on ordering and edge cases, but adequate for this simple read tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of artist_id is about a field in the response used by other tools, not an input, which is helpful framing but not parameter documentation.

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 (students on parent/fan account), and enumerates the returned fields (artist_id, name, school, grade, counts). It also differentiates itself by naming the sibling tools that consume artist_id, so an agent can place it in the workflow.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by calling artist_id the selector used by portfolio, comments and fan tools, it hints this is the entry-point call for obtaining that id. There is no explicit 'use this when X, otherwise use Y' guidance or mention of prerequisites like being signed in.

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