mhlb_list_students

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful output-scope details (orders status, inactive profile, unaccepted invites) and emphasizes the id's role, which is mildly behavioral. However, it does not disclose any edge conditions, pagination, or error behavior, so it stays at a baseline level.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence delivers the purpose, output fields, and a note on the id's cross-tool importance. No fluff, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the action and target.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent will receive (specific fields and statuses). It explains why the output matters (id feeds other tools). Nothing critical is missing for a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist; nothing more is needed.

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 ('List') and resource ('students on the account') and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, first name, school, grade/teacher, orders status, profile status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mhlb_create_student or mhlb_get_student_form, which are different actions on students.

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 notes that 'The student id feeds every calendar and ordering tool,' which gives clear motivation for when to invoke this tool (to obtain student IDs for downstream operations). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but since it is the sole tool for listing students, the usage context is adequately implied.

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