School MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It compensates partially by disclosing the return structure (message list with sender, subject, date, read status) since there is no output schema. However, it lacks safety disclosures, pagination behavior, or error handling details.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second describes return payload. Efficiently front-loaded with no redundant information.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the returned message fields. Missing only minor details like pagination or empty result behavior.

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 100% (the unreadOnly parameter is well-documented in the schema itself). The description does not mention the filtering capability at all, but given the schema fully documents the single parameter, 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 clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (messages from teachers and school administration). It effectively distinguishes this tool from academic-focused siblings like get_grades or get_attendance by specifying the communication domain.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the domain is distinct from grade/attendance siblings, the description does not clarify boundaries with ask_about_grades or specify prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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