School MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return payload structure by listing specific fields (name, address, phone, principal), compensating for the missing output schema. However, it lacks details on caching, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with optimal information density. Front-loaded with action verb 'Get', followed by resource identification and specific field enumeration. No redundant words or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (no input parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the expected return fields. For a straightforward metadata retrieval tool, this level of detail is sufficient, though mentioning data freshness or caching would improve it further.

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 contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters that don't exist in the schema, maintaining consistency with the empty properties object.

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 (student's school information), and specifies exact fields returned (name, address, phone number, principal). It implicitly distinguishes from student-data siblings (grades, attendance, etc.) by focusing on institutional metadata, though it doesn't explicitly mention siblings.

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 when-to-use or alternatives are stated, but usage is clearly implied by the specific resource (school institution data vs student performance data). The field listing (principal, address) provides implicit context that this retrieves administrative contact information rather than academic records.

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