find_student

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can return multiple matches, what happens if no student is found, or any potential side effects. While it implies a safe lookup, it fails to convey critical behavioral context such as error behavior or data scope limitations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action verb and places the key qualifier ('demo') early. Every word earns its place, providing essential information without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema present). Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return formatting. It correctly identifies what the student data covers (course, attendance, enrollment status) and the lookup criterion. The only omission is explicit guidance on edge cases, but these are less critical for such a straightforward tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameter's meaning. It does so implicitly by stating 'by name', which aligns with the 'name' parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the expected format (e.g., full name vs partial, case sensitivity) or whether the name is case‑insensitive. The description adds only minimal value beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 (find), the target (demo student), the specific pieces of information returned (course, attendance, and enrollment status), and the lookup method (by name). It is instantly distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools 'calculate' and 'get_current_time', so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 implies the tool should be used when a student's details are needed by name, but it provides no explicit guidance on when it is appropriate versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is unambiguous but under-specified, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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