courses_student_courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and enumerates the data categories included, but it does not disclose default scope when no person_id is provided, whether students with no courses are included, or pagination behavior. There is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaning by naming the entities and data areas returned, making it compact and easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description carries moderate responsibility. It names the major return areas—courses, lessons, final evaluations, and attendance percentages—and the schema covers filter semantics. It does not specify row shape or default filtering behavior, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both person_id and evalterm_id are already documented. The description's 'students' and 'for an evaluation term' loosely map to the two parameters, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource: students with their courses, lessons, final evaluations, and attendance percentages for an evaluation term. This composite scope is distinct from sibling tools like lessons_list or evaluations_list, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is clear and not a tautology.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when a student-centric overview of courses, lessons, final evaluations, and attendance is needed for an evaluation term. However, it gives no explicit comparisons or exclusions relative to sibling tools such as attendance_students, lessons_list, or evaluations_list, so an agent must infer the exact selection criteria.

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