fc course students

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds 'paginated', which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it never explains the pagination mechanics (page/cursor params, defaults) even though no such parameter appears in the schema.

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 valuable sentence is front-loaded and compact. The trailing controller/route-source block is implementation metadata of limited use to an agent selecting the tool, but it is short and does not bury the main point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it names the roster, the pivot, and the completion percentage. For a read-only, annotation-covered list tool this is close to sufficient; only pagination mechanics are left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, and the description adds nothing about search, account, sort_by, or sort_dir semantics. Baseline 3 applies. It does not clarify the 'account' label-versus-ID distinction, which the schema already handles.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns the paginated roster of a course'. It even describes the item payload (enrolment pivot, completion percentage), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives (e.g. fc_space_members or fc_list_courses). Usage is only weakly implied by 'roster of a course'.

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