study_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds two behavioral details not in annotations: it reads cache freshness and previous authentication observations. It does not describe return shape, staleness semantics, or whether it can trigger a refresh.

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 short sentences, no waste, but the second sentence is a parameter instruction rather than the front-loaded purpose, so the structure mixes concerns. It is compact but not optimally ordered.

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 30 sibling tools, no output schema, no annotations-backed return info, and a 0%-covered parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the status response contains or when the capabilities flag changes the answer, which an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single boolean parameter, so the schema provides no description at all. The description says what to set it for ('implemented, missing and unverified features') but conveys no default behavior, mutual exclusivity, or effect on output. It partially compensates but leaves the parameter underspecified.

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 names a resource ('cache freshness and previous authentication observations') with a read verb, which is clearer than a bare name. However, 'study_status' vs 'study_school_status' vs 'study_services' are all status-adjacent siblings and the description gives no hint of how it differs from them. The second sentence shifts to describing a parameter, muddying the stated purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g., study_school_status) to prefer for related status questions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the description text.

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