mhlb_get_student_form

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the payload is a round-trip model for mhlb_update_student, and the returned text is third-party-authored and must be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection warning is real added value annotations do not carry, though error/empty-response behavior is unstated.

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 first front-loads what the tool returns, the second delivers the round-trip contract and the trust warning. Every clause earns its place.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does — naming the fields, the dropdown options, and the data-versus-instructions distinction. Combined with the annotation-declared safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that studentId comes from mhlb_list_students. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline at high coverage.

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") and enumerates what the profile covers — school, grade, teacher, delivery location, allergies, plus dropdown options. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mhlb_get_order_form 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 description names the paired tool and the exact workflow condition: its `data` is the model mhlb_update_student expects back, which tells the agent this is the read step before an update. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it or what to do instead for non-editable views.

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