mhlb_get_student_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, so the description need not restate read-only behavior. It adds useful context that the return value is structured as the update model, and describes the form fields, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling or access requirements. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the critical link to the update tool. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is sufficiently informative. It lists the fields returned, mentions dropdown options, and explicitly ties the response shape to update_student, which is essential for correct subsequent calls. No critical missing information for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of studentId as 'Student id from mhlb_list_students' and proper constraints. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'editable profile for one student', and enumerates the fields it returns (school, grade, teacher, delivery location, allergies, dropdown options). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_order and list_students without ambiguity.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use this tool by noting it returns the exact model that mhlb_update_student expects back, linking it to an edit workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer it should precede update operations.

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