student_statistics

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add important context—output is pseudonymized/anonymous and covers the entire school history—but it leaves unclear how the optional 'date' parameter relates to the 'entire school history' claim and does not describe the response shape or any limitations.

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?

One compact sentence leads with the verb and packs the two most decision-relevant facts—anonymization and full-history scope—up front. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers the only parameter, so the description does not need much. Still, it leaves open what 'statistics' actually includes and how the reference date interacts with the 'entire school history' scope, which an agent may need to invoke or interpret results 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?

The input schema already documents the single optional 'date' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to repeat it. The description adds no extra meaning about how the date influences the statistics, which prevents a higher score.

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 'Get' with the resource 'student statistics' and sharpens it with two qualifiers: 'pseudonymized (anonymous UUID)' and 'across entire school history.' These qualifiers also separate it from PII-based siblings like student_personal_data and per-student views like direct_attendance_student_overview.

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 intended usage is implied: call this when you need anonymized, school-wide student statistics rather than identifiable per-student records. However, the description names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.

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