list_registrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavior. It indicates a read operation (list) but doesn't explicitly say it's non-destructive or clarify pagination, sorting, or required permissions. The mention of a 'limit' parameter hints at pagination, but additional details (e.g., returns a list of registration objects) would improve transparency. The presence of an output schema partly compensates.

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 very concise: a single-line title, three example use cases, and a bullet list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous text.

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 the presence of an output schema (return format documented) and 4 simple parameters, the description covers the essential functionality and use cases. It lacks details like default limit, filtering logic (AND vs OR), and ordering, but for a straightforward list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'program_id: restrict to one program.'), which clarifies their purpose beyond the schema. However, the descriptions are terse and could be more detailed.

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 explicitly states 'List registrations (enrollments)' with a clear verb and resource. It mentions filtering by program/child/school, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., list_children, list_programs). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 concrete example questions like 'who's enrolled in program 7777?' or 'what programs is child X currently in?', guiding the agent on when to use. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the examples cover common use cases clearly.

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