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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is an estimate for pre-official tracking and that it returns a weighted average and mention, though it does not disclose formula assumptions or input constraints.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before usage, inputs, outputs, and a related-bundle pointer. The 'Inputs' and 'Returns' sentences partly duplicate the schema and output schema, so not every sentence fully earns its place.

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?

For a simple, single-purpose calculator with a fully described input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential context. It does not mention that all seven inputs are required or the 0–20/0–720 ranges, but those details are available in the schema.

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%, so every parameter and its coefficient/scale is already documented in the schema. The description's 'grades by subject with coefficients' adds no syntax or meaning beyond that structured data.

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 names a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('French Baccalauréat final score'), and the mention of grades/coefficients clarifies the exact scope. This is sufficient to distinguish it from siblings such as calculate_brevet_points or calculate_parcoursup_points without opening either schema.

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?

It states a concrete usage context ('track lycée results before official scores'), which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it does not name direct alternatives or explicitly state when another calculator (e.g., Brevet or Parcoursup) should be chosen instead.

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