ic_list_fees

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the dual-endpoint behavior, the FeatureDisabled outcome when both endpoints 404, and the PartialSuccess warning with issues[] when only one endpoint fails. This gives the agent concrete failure-mode expectations.

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 front-load the core purpose, then add the endpoint composition and failure semantics without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, endpoint combination, and partial-failure behavior, which is substantial given no output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact shape of the returned data, but the mention of fee assignments and totalSurplus provides adequate context for a straightforward list operation.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description does not add meaningful parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. The `view` parameter is extensively documented in the schema, and `studentId` is explained there too, but the description itself contributes nothing about parameters such as `district`, leaving that parameter under-specified.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a student's fee assignments (charges owed) and running balance/surplus'), making it immediately distinct from sibling tools like ic_list_assignments. It also clarifies the combined nature of the operation by naming both underlying endpoints.

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?

The usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs a student's fee assignments or balance/surplus. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference any alternative tool, so some inference is required.

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