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 discloses return value structure ('document listing with dates and descriptions'), compensating for the missing output schema. However, it omits behavioral traits like safety, idempotency, or what happens when no report cards exist.

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 with zero redundancy: first states the operation, second states the return value. Every word earns its place and the description is front-loaded with the action.

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 zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It could be improved by mentioning edge cases (empty results) or pagination, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for completeness given the low complexity.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds value by specifying the tool operates on 'the student', implying the student identifier comes from authentication context rather than explicit parameters, which clarifies the empty schema.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('report cards') scoped to 'the student'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_documents', which could also retrieve student documents, leaving ambiguity about which tool to use for document retrieval.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_documents', 'get_grade_summary', or 'get_gradebook'. Does not mention prerequisites or conditions where this tool is preferred over querying live grade data.

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