mhlb_list_students

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

With readOnlyHint already provided, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: it discloses that results include inactive profiles and unaccepted invites, and that the student id is a dependency for other tools. This helps the agent interpret the returned data correctly. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fluff: the first lists the output fields, the second explains downstream utility. Every sentence earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned and why it matters for later tools. It does not specify exact response envelopes or pagination, but for this simple list operation the information is largely sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; it focuses on output meaning instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('the students on the account'), then enumerates the returned fields: id, first name, school, grade/teacher, order presence, and inactive/invite status. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like mhlb_list_transactions or mhlb_get_calendar.

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 sentence 'The student id feeds every calendar and ordering tool' gives implicit but strong guidance: call this tool first to obtain student IDs before using downstream tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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