Student information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: each login is an independent parent or student account, clarifying the account-to-student mapping (one profile per login) that an agent would otherwise have to guess. It doesn't mention behavior for an unknown or invalid alias.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and returned fields front-loaded before the account-model clarification. 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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers what is returned and how accounts map to students, which is enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on an unknown alias, or whether a parent account can surface multiple children).

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 single parameter already carries a description pointing to list_accounts plus a pattern and length bounds. The description adds no format, casing, or alias-resolution semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the profile of the student a login represents") and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (name, class, register number, tutor, school, lucky number), so an agent can distinguish it from the grade/attendance siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope boundaries explicitly, which is what separates a 4 from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative; the usage is only implied by the resource name and by the schema note that the alias comes from list_accounts. An agent can infer the workflow (list_accounts → get_student_information) but the description itself doesn't route it.

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