Get My Grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the return data (grade items with points, percentages, and comments), which matters since no output schema exists. It stays silent on error cases (e.g., invalid course ID or unenrolled course), which is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, then return content, then usage triggers. The trigger sentence is a long enumeration but each clause is a plausible user phrasing, so little is wasted.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the default scope, the returned fields, and when to invoke it. The only missing piece is routing guidance versus the adjacent get_grade_outlook 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 description coverage is 100% and the single courseId parameter is fully documented, including the omit-to-return-all default. The description merely restates that same default ("a specific course or all enrolled courses") without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Fetch your grade breakdown") plus the scope (one course or all enrolled courses), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_grade_outlook, so the agent must infer the boundary between a raw grade breakdown and an outlook projection.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger list (grades, scores, marks, GPA, academic performance, how they're doing in a class) that maps user utterances to this tool. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent gets clear positive guidance but no disambiguation against get_grade_outlook.

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