study_live_myed

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context beyond them by disclosing the asynchronous job pattern (returns job_id, poll study_school_job) and the possibility of an extra SSO sign-in. This explains why a 'read' tool is not flagged read-only, without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return value and caveat. No filler, though the 'same dedicated campus profile' phrase is an unexplained reference.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the return value (job_id) and the polling tool, plus the SSO caveat and the assurance that records are not modified. Only the shape/content of the returned links is left unspecified.

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 the description adds no parameter detail because none is needed. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read MyEd university service links') and names the follow-up sibling study_school_job. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like study_read_service or study_services, so an agent still has to guess which read tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'using the same dedicated campus profile' and the polling instruction for study_school_job. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over study_read_service, study_services, or study_live_resources.

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