mhlb_get_student_form

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral contract: it returns an editable profile shaped for mhlb_update_student. It does not describe edge cases like missing student, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and target are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the most decision-relevant detail: compatibility with mhlb_update_student.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool. The description lists the return content and connects it to the update flow, which is sufficient context despite the absence of an output schema. Minor omissions like not-found behavior do not significantly harm usability.

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% and the only parameter, studentId, is already documented as coming from mhlb_list_students. The description adds little beyond 'one student', so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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: 'Get the editable profile for one student', then enumerates the fields (school, grade, teacher, delivery location, allergies, dropdown options). This distinguishes it from mhlb_list_students and mhlb_new_student_form.

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 phrase 'Returns the exact model that mhlb_update_student expects back' clearly situates this tool as the fetch step before updating a student. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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