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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds essentially only a list of returned fields, which the output schema already conveys, and says nothing about pagination, ordering across terms, or how ended terms are treated by default.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope phrase comes first. The trailing enumeration of fields is somewhat redundant against the output schema, but it does help an agent judge whether class-level grade data is available here instead of calling get_grades.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and a fully described optional parameter, the definition is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any explicit statement about default term scoping or sibling routing, which would matter for a tool that sits alongside get_grades and list_assignments.

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 single parameter include_past_terms is documented with a default in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase "by term" hints at term scoping but the description never mentions the parameter, its default of false, or what happens to ended terms.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the user's classes") plus the organizing axis ("by term"), and the enumerated fields make the scope concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_grades or list_assignments, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the roster view of classes, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer get_grades for grade-specific questions, and no note about the past-term behavior that the parameter controls.

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