Get grade cutoffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that it 'Returns a note if restricted to instructors' — a permission-related edge case. It also provides a format example (A ≥ 93) that implies the output structure. These additions justify a 4, since the annotations lower the burden and the description enriches it.

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 sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the example is illustrative, and the instructor-restriction note is placed at the end without disrupting the core message. Every clause 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 read-only, idempotent tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the resource, its purpose, a typical user question, and an edge case (instructor restriction). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it and to understand the expected result.

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% — the single parameter courseId is described as 'Canvas course id'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it also doesn't need to. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not introduce conflicts or ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a course's letter-grade cutoff scheme with a concrete example ('A ≥ 93, etc.') and its intended use case ('what do I need for an A?'). This differentiates it from siblings like canvas_get_course_grade (which returns a student's grade) and canvas_get_grades (which lists grades). The verb 'get' plus resource 'grading standards' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly ties usage to a common question ('for 'what do I need for an A?'') which gives clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but its purpose is self-evident enough that an agent would know to use it for cutoff thresholds rather than actual grades. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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