get_user_enrollments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' implies a read operation and no destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, default user scoping beyond the schema, or any side effects. The transparency is minimal and mostly relies on the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is succinct and front-loaded with the core operation. It lacks richer structure or additional context, but for its brevity it is still efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool with three optional parameters and at least one ambiguous sibling ('list_enrollments'). It does not explain what enrollment data is returned, how pagination is signaled, or how this differs from similar list operations. The description is too minimal to fully contextualize the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List enrollments for a user.' It clearly identifies the main operation and the target resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'list_enrollments', so an agent may not know which to choose without further inspection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of 'list_enrollments' as a sibling, the absence of any selection criteria or contrasting context is a notable gap. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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