pup_get_student

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the description's added value is the trust boundary warning about third-party authored text and the contrast between the projected summary and the raw API record. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about not-found or error behavior.

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 tight sentences: what is returned, how to get the raw variant, and the security constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (contents, raw flag) leads.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return: a full student record plus weekday default dismissal plans, with the trust caveat. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/empty-result behavior for an invalid student_id.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the raw flag's behavior is already documented in the schema, so the description largely repeats it. No additional syntax or format detail is provided; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource (fetch one student in full) and adds the distinctive content scope: the default dismissal plan for each weekday. This clearly separates it from pup_list_students and pup_get_default_plans.

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?

Use of the raw flag is explained ('Pass raw: true for the untouched API record'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative sibling. The agent must infer that this is the single-record companion to pup_list_students.

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