get_student_goal_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns goal-related information (scores, dates, progress), but lacks details on whether it is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or consistency guarantees. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing. Still, it earns its place with clear intent.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use cases thoroughly. It explains what information the tool provides, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it misses details on return format or behaviors like pagination.

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 7 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema; it only states the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides 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 is for querying student goal status, including test score goals, test dates, progress, and whether the goal is achieved. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which explicitly target goals.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Dùng khi hỏi...' meaning 'Use when asking...'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, leaving room for improvement.

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