list_parents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions returning the full roster in one call (no pagination) and specifies filters as case-insensitive, which are useful behavioral details. It doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics, but the operation is inherently a read and no side effects are suggested. This is adequate for a list operation.

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 concise and well-organized: a single-line purpose, a brief usage note, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what it does and how to use results) is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists to define return values, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: purpose, source of school_id, filters, and downstream usage. It explicitly states the full roster is returned in one call, closing any pagination question. No critical information is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: school_id origin, name_contains as a case-insensitive substring filter, and student_name_contains similarly. This adds meaning far beyond the schema's bare type definitions, making parameter interpretation unambiguous.

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 tool lists guardians/parents on a school's admin roster and enumerates the fields returned (user_id, name, email, phone, linked students). This verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_students or add_parent, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the returned user_id in edit_parent and link_guardian_to_student, and references school_id from list_schools, providing integration context. However, it does not state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, though no sibling provides a conflicting listing capability, so this is a minor gap.

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