pup_get_school

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already established. The description adds value by enumerating the returned data: school profile, notify times, cutoff times, and settings. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the output structure without contradicting the annotation. It doesn't go into response format details, but the annotation lowers the bar for behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that fronts the main object ('A school profile') and then lists the specifics. Every word contributes to the understanding, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured.

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 simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the primary contents of the response. It names the key components (profile, notify times, cutoff times, settings) without needing exhaustive schema-level detail. The absence of error handling or edge-case notes is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the readOnly annotation.

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 schema already fully describes the school_id parameter, including its source ('from pup_list_students'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond echoing the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the resource (school) and what it returns: a school profile, per-weekday notify times, plan cutoff times, and parent-restriction settings. It is distinct from sibling tools like pup_get_student or pup_get_session because it focuses on the school-level data. The verb 'get' is implied by the tool name and the description matches the purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied through the parameter description 'School id, from pup_list_students', which suggests a prerequisite call to list students to obtain a valid id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context is minimal but not absent, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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