get_student_enrollments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses conditional grade availability ('including grades if available') and the grading period behavior, which is valuable. But it does not describe the return shape (single object vs. list), possible additional fields, or error/permission implications, leaving room for agent uncertainty.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second covers the optional grading period nuance. It is front-loaded, scannable, and contains no filler or redundant repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and grading period nuance, but it does not specify whether the response is a record or list, what 'enrollment details' include, or how missing grades are represented. This ambiguity could hinder correct invocation and output interpretation.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage, including a detailed explanation of grading_period_id. The tool description largely restates that parameter's behavior and adds the phrase 'cumulative lifetime grade,' but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('enrollment details for a specific student in a course'), and clarifies optional grade scoping. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_student_summaries or get_student_activity by focusing on enrollment-specific details for a single student/course.

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 gives specific guidance for the grading_period_id parameter, explaining when to use it (semester/term grade vs. cumulative) and explicitly recommending list_grading_periods to find ids. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with other student-data tools or state when to prefer it over alternatives.

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