individual_goals_learning_agreements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state that it is read-only, nor does it explain behaviors around validity ranges, date filtering, authorization requirements, or response size. This is acceptable for a simple read, but it lacks the explicit transparency expected when annotations are absent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then adds relevant specifics. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with three optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description names the core returned content, but it does not clarify the response format, pagination, or the effect of omitting student_id, even though the schema partly covers this. It is adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'validity ranges' as output content, not as a filter explanation. Thus the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not add extra semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource ('student learning agreements'), further specifying the included content: coach feedback, subcompetences, and validity ranges. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'individual_goals_lesson_content' by the resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description implies this tool is for retrieving learning agreements, but it does not help an agent decide between this and the related sibling tool or indicate when the optional parameters should be used.

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