Grade Outlook And Target Calculator

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail about what is computed and returned (current percentage, best/worst final grade, required average) and that omitting targetPercent yields standing only. It does not discuss computation assumptions for ungraded or unweighted items, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

Front-loaded statement of output, then concrete example queries, then the routing sentence. Every sentence carries weight, though the quoted example queries are somewhat redundant with the opening sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly, and annotations already cover the safety profile. Usage, alternative, and outputs are all present, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters (including totalWeight's near-always-100 note and targetPercent's omit behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates targetPercent's role via the 'must score on everything left to hit targetPercent' sentence; it adds no syntax or format guidance 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 ('works out where the user stands in one course and what they need...') and names the sibling it is not ('For the raw grade items, use get_my_grades instead'). An agent can distinguish it from get_my_grades 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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('what do I need on the final to get 80?', 'can I still pass?') and an explicit alternative for the raw-data case. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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