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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Estimate', which implies a non-destructive calculation, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 plus a helpful reference, which is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbiage.

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 5 required parameters and no annotations, the description provides essential information but could be improved by noting the output scale or typical result range. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description is minimally adequate.

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 each parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond grouping the inputs as 'component grades'. Baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 estimates a Parcoursup weighted score from French baccalaureate component grades. This is specific and directly conveys the function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools; the reference to list_bundles for related education calculators provides some context.

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 implies use when estimating a Parcoursup score from baccalaureate grades and points to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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