list_students

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by emphasizing that the result is the full set of children and that it explicitly does not return tokens, which clarifies a likely invalidation concern. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—with the primary action first and an important limitation second. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool's trivial input complexity, the rich annotations, and the clarifying 'no tokens' statement, the description fully covers the calling context. No return schema exists, but the tool name and description convey sufficient expectations for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. Schema coverage is effectively 100% and baseline for 0 params is 4; the description's statement of returning all children without filters is consistent but adds no parameter-specific semantics.

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 states a clear verb and object: 'Lista wszystkich dzieci' (list all children) associated with the LIBRUS account. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by performing an unfiltered list operation, not a data-specific retrieval. The function name and description align clearly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the get_* siblings or when it should precede other calls. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. The only hint (does not return tokens) is a behavioral note, not a usage policy.

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