get_bundles

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a read-only lookup against the live school, creates/changes/deletes nothing, auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled and retried on 429/5xx, and responses are paginated with a limit of 20. It also explains error surfacing for non-2xx statuses. This far exceeds the already-supportive 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 well-structured with labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and front-loads the read-only nature and resource. While detailed, every section earns its place and no redundant filler is present. The formatting aids quick parsing by an agent.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is fully complete: it covers pagination, ordering, response format, error handling, authentication, rate limiting, and intended usage. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly describes the return value shape, so nothing critical 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 input schema already fully documents the single `page` parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds complementary context by explaining that results are paged and that the agent should 'walk them with `page`,' reinforcing how the parameter should be used in practice. This adds modest value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all bundles' and 'Returns a list of all bundles of the school.' It also clearly differentiates from the sibling get_bundle by indicating this returns all bundles in a paginated sorted list. The scoping and behavior are unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting.' It also instructs when not to use it: 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' It names the related sibling get_bundle, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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