get_my_students

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

The description discloses that data is cached ('Uses cached data') and that parent data is parsed from the school homepage, which is useful behavioral context. It also states the output fields (person_id, name, class_id). With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does a good job of revealing the caching behavior and the parsing source.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior, the second adds the caching detail, and the third lists the return fields and related tools. Every sentence 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it returns, who sees what, caching, and how the output can be used downstream. It could mention the subdomain parameter explicitly, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter is subdomain, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not explain what subdomain means or how to fill it. However, the tool name and context imply it is the school subdomain, and the description's focus on account-visible students is more important. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('students visible to the logged-in account'), and distinguishes between parent and student account behavior. It also names sibling tools (switch_to_student, get_student_timetable) that the returned data is usable with, which helps differentiate it from get_students/get_all_students.

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 explains when to use it: for parent accounts it returns linked children, for student accounts it returns classmates. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like get_students/get_all_students, but the account-type context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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