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. It discloses key behaviors: searches all logged-in schools without a subdomain, returns one result per school, and provides match confidence tiers (1-4). It also hints at an authentication requirement by mentioning 'logged-in schools.' It doesn't detail error handling or exact return fields, but the tiered matching and multi-school behavior are well explained. This is more transparent than many read-only tools.

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 compact paragraph where every sentence adds value. It opens with the core purpose, then explains the scoping behavior, then the output format with confidence tiers, and ends with a practical chaining tip. No fluff or redundancy—it's front-loaded and well-structured.

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 there's no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential runtime behavior: search scope, result cardinality, match tiers, and how to leverage results with another tool. It could be more specific about the exact fields returned in the student info (beyond student_id), but it provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand what to expect. The chaining hint also adds practical context. Overall, it's complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains 'name' as first/last/full name and 'subdomain' via the contrast: 'Without a subdomain, searches ALL logged-in schools' (implying with subdomain it scopes to a specific school). It also clarifies the output includes student_id, which is used for chaining. The description fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, giving operational meaning to each parameter.

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 action: 'Look up a student by first/last/full name using tiered matching.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_students (which presumably list all) by focusing on name-based lookup with matching tiers. This is a specific verb plus resource, and the tiered matching detail differentiates it from other student-related tools.

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 provides clear context: 'Without a subdomain, searches ALL logged-in schools and returns one result per school.' It also gives a chaining recommendation: 'Use student_id from results with get_student_timetable for unambiguous lookups.' This implies when to use the tool and how to follow up, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like get_students or get_all_students. It's clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this instead of a bulk listing tool.

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