ic_list_fees

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the tool fans out to two endpoints, degrades to 'PartialSuccess' with an issues[] array when one side fails, and returns FeatureDisabled only when both 404. That is exactly the kind of partial-failure contract 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the endpoint-combination detail, then the failure contract. Every sentence carries information, though the failure-mode sentences could be compressed slightly.

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 aggregating list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the tricky partial-failure behavior well. It stops short of describing what the returned fee/balance records contain, which an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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 67% and the description contributes nothing about view, district, or studentId; the schema itself documents view (with its compact/full tradeoff) and studentId's provenance. The undocumented district parameter is left unexplained in both places, so this sits at the baseline rather than above it.

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 — listing a student's fee assignments and running balance/surplus — and clarifies that it aggregates two underlying endpoints. No sibling tool covers fees, so the agent can route here unambiguously from the sibling list.

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 by the resource (get fees for a given student), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or named alternative. The failure-mode note (FeatureDisabled only when both endpoints 404) is behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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