Target grade

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: it aggregates earned and remaining points and reports the points still needed, with scoping via course_ids. It does not explain edge cases like impossible targets or output structure.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only useful clarification about target_percent, course scoping, and example user intents. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is computed, how target_percent and course_ids affect scope, and what the user receives. No critical calling information 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates target_percent’s 0–100 range and course_ids’ empty-means-all-active behavior but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

The description states a specific computation: points needed on remaining work to reach a target percent in each class. It clearly identifies the resource and outcome, making it distinguishable from siblings like get_my_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?

It gives concrete user-question examples such as “What do I need to score to get a 90?” and explains that course_ids limits scope while empty means all active classes. It lacks an explicit when-not or named alternative such as get_my_grades for current grades.

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