mhlb_list_students

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: the untrusted third-party authorship of the returned text and the instruction to treat it as data, plus the inactive/unaccepted-invite status semantics. It does not describe pagination or result-size behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: what is listed, why the id matters, and how to treat the payload. The identity and return-shape information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 carries the full burden and discharges it by enumerating the returned fields and flagging the untrusted-content risk. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document beyond the call itself. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately spends its words on returned fields instead of inventing parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the students on the account") and then enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. This clearly separates it from sibling mutators such as mhlb_create_student, mhlb_update_student, and mhlb_delete_student.

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?

It gives downstream usage context ("The student id feeds every calendar and ordering tool"), which implies you list students first to obtain an id. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as mhlb_get_student_form or mhlb_whoami, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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