Grade breakdown

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld, so the description's job is to say what comes back. It does: per-item marks and percentages plus the course total when one exists, and the 'when there is one' hedge correctly signals that the total is conditional.

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 question framing front-loads the purpose, then input, then an example: three compact sentences with no filler. The quoted 'Ask:' example is slightly redundant with the opening question but still earns its place as a trigger.

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?

This is a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does by naming marks, percentages and the conditional course total. It lacks detail on ordering, empty-gradebook behavior or whether ungraded items appear.

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% and the schema already says the course_id is a Moodle course ID found via get_my_courses. The description repeats that same guidance without adding format or type details, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list every graded item for one course with mark and percentage. It implies a course-scoped scope that separates it from a global grades tool, but it never names get_my_grades or another sibling, so differentiation is inferential.

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 a concrete trigger question and an example prompt, plus explicitly routes the ID lookup to get_my_courses. It omits when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. how it differs from get_my_grades or get_assignments.

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