school_check_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses conditional behavior ("when configured" for Ion) and that it returns a diagnostic explanation, but never states that it is a non-mutating read-only check or what auth/network prerequisites it needs.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the scope front-loaded and the routing hint second. 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 diagnostic with no output schema or annotations, the description covers scope, the optional Ion target, and the nature of the result. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (test) plus the exact resources (FCPS Schoology, StudentVUE, and optionally TJHSST Ion logins) and adds the distinguishing intent to report exactly why a failure occurs. Every sibling is a data-fetching tool, so this diagnostic tool is unmistakable.

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 this first when another tool reports a login problem" gives a clear trigger condition and ordering relative to siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, but the routing guidance is otherwise unambiguous.

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