find_student

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It omits whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any other behavioral aspects like rate limits or side effects. The description only focuses on use cases. Grade: 2 (does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations; significant gap for a search tool).

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous content. Every word contributes to clarity. Grade: 5 (appropriately sized and 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, handling of multiple matches, or default behavior (e.g., DEFAULT_COURSEID mentioned in param but not explained). It covers when to use but not what to expect. Grade: 3 (adequate but with clear gaps given complexity).

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%, and the tool description adds little beyond grouping parameters into categories. The schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description does not provide additional semantics or clarify parameter relationships beyond what the schema offers. Grade: 3 (baseline for high schema coverage, no added meaning).

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 finds students by name, email, userid, and class/course/group. It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specific student data. Grade: 5 (specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings).

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 specifies usage scenarios: when a teacher just mentions a student name or needs to distinguish duplicate names. This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. Grade: 4 (clear context, no exclusions).

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