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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that — it doesn't say what weighting model is applied or caveat the 'Estimate' wording, though an output schema is present so return shape need not be explained.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a mild navigation aid rather than action-relevant content, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 closed-world, non-destructive calculator with 5/5 documented parameters and an output schema, the essentials are covered. The remaining gap is comparative: with siblings like calculate_parcoursup_points adjacent, an agent gets no signal about which one to pick.

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 every parameter carries a range (0-20) and a clear label, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at 'component grades' and adds no mapping, weighting, or default information beyond the schema.

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 ('Estimate Parcoursup weighted score') plus the input domain ('French baccalaureate component grades'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as calculate_parcoursup_points or calculate_bac_points.

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 only guidance is a cross-reference ('See list_bundles for related education calculators'), which points at a discovery tool rather than explaining when to use this calculator over its near-twin siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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