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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Estimate' and 'Returns total points and mention' but does not disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has no side effects. For a calculation tool, this is a notable gap in transparency.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage scope, inputs/outputs, and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence serves a purpose, and key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has 6 required parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the domain (French Brevet) and what the tool does. It mentions output types ('total points and mention'). It could be slightly improved by noting that the calculation follows official formula, but it is sufficient for a calculator tool.

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 each parameter having a description. The description adds only general context ('grades by subject, continuous control') but does not explain calculation specifics or how parameters relate to each other. Thus, it adds marginal value beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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's purpose: 'Estimate French Brevet (DNB) score from grades and continuous-control marks.' It specifies the target users ('collège students') and what it returns ('total points and mention'). This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_bac_points, which handles a different exam.

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 says 'Use for collège students forecasting their result' and points to list_bundles for related education calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like calculate_bac_points. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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