mhlb_new_student_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by describing what the tool returns (a blank profile and school/grade/teacher dropdowns) and its role as a preparatory step for creation. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a concrete expectation of the output, albeit without detailed structure.

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 that front-loads the primary action ('Get a blank student profile'), then adds the specific dropdown options, and closes with the intended workflow. No filler, 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: what is returned, what the purpose is, and how to use it next. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly in the context of creating a new student.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not—keeping the description clean.

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 clearly states a verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('blank student profile') plus the dropdown options, and explicitly links to its intended downstream use ('pass to mhlb_create_student'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like mhlb_get_student_form (which likely fetches an existing form) and mhlb_create_student, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: to obtain a form to be filled and passed to mhlb_create_student. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use mhlb_get_student_form for existing students'), but the 'new student' wording and the pointer to create_student implicitly signal the correct workflow. Clear context without explicit contrasts.

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