study_home

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the output is a cached overview and can be stale, with a stated mitigation (refresh the relevant service). It does not describe pagination or size limits, but the caching disclosure is meaningful added value.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The contents of the hub are front-loaded and the caching caveat follows it, so an agent gets the substance before the operational nuance.

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, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the four content categories. With no parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, little else is required; only the mechanism for refreshing stale data remains unnamed.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. A 4 is the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and a clearly scoped resource ('the personal school hub'), then enumerates what the hub contains: service access coverage, indexed resource counts, saved collections, and outstanding local tasks. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like study_collections or study_tasks, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It implies usage ('show the hub') and gives one useful conditional rule: the view is cached, so refresh the relevant service when current information is requested. However, it never names which tool performs that refresh (study_school_status, study_services, study_read_service), leaving the agent to guess the alternative. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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