Target GPA planner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that, disclosing that the tool reports when the target is already met or would require more than one term. It does not say what happens when the target exceeds the scale maximum or is otherwise unreachable.

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 with the purpose, followed by inputs, edge-case behavior, and an illustrative example — a sensible order. The input enumeration largely duplicates the schema and could be trimmed, but the example prompt earns its space.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers inputs and key edge-case reporting. The remaining gap is failure/unreachable-target behavior, which an agent planning a call would benefit from knowing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes slightly further by explaining that the scale id 'sets the top grade point the scale allows', which is semantic meaning not obvious from the enum alone. Other parameters are restated with their bounds, adding little 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: 'Plan the GPA needed on upcoming credits to reach a target cumulative GPA.' This is clearly distinct from a raw GPA calculator, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings like calculate_gpa or needed_on_final.

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 concrete usage context through enumerated inputs and a worked example prompt, making the triggering scenario obvious. It stops short of saying when not to use it or pointing to an alternative tool for single-assignment questions.

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