Target grade

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds useful behavioral context: it explains that the tool computes from graded points unless current_percent is supplied from Canvas. It does not describe failure modes or the exact response shape, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and appropriately sized for a simple calculator. It includes a helpful example, though some parameter explanation duplicates the schema and could be tighter.

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, three-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the core inputs and calculation concept well. It could be more complete by noting what the result includes or how impossible/edge targets are handled, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description repeats course_id, target_percent, and current_percent semantics, adding only slight nuance about using Canvas-reported percent instead of computing from graded points.

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 states a specific calculation: determining the score needed on remaining Canvas work to reach a target percent in one course. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_my_grades because it computes a required future score rather than reporting current grades.

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 gives a clear usage scenario and example question, so an agent knows when this calculator is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus get_my_grades or other grade-related siblings, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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