get_student_dami_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or the structure of the response. For a query tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the trigger phrase 'Use when asking about', but for a tool with 7 optional parameters, it could benefit from slightly more structure to guide parameter selection.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 optional identifiers, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how identifiers interact (e.g., which combination is needed, fallback behavior), what the response contains, or how to handle ambiguous inputs.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 lists the specific data points (attendance points, study hours, streak, EXP, etc.) that the tool retrieves, making its purpose evident. However, it could be more explicit by including a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_student_attendance, which may overlap.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use when asking about...'), implying the context, but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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