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 adds useful behavioral detail that missing grades yield 'no grade posted yet', which prevents an agent from misreading empty results. It does not describe return shape or ordering, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing sample question largely restates the opening line, which is mild redundancy rather than harmful, so the description stays short and readable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, scope, and the empty-result behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing, though naming the item-level alternative would close the last gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'No input', consistent with the empty schema, and adds no misleading parameter guidance.

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 names a specific verb/resource combination ('Shows the posted overall grade for every current course') and scopes it to overall per-course grades, which implicitly distinguishes it from the item-level sibling get_course_grade_items. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied through the repeated sample question ('What's my grade in each course?'), which tells the agent the triggering scenario. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over get_course_grade_items or get_assignments, and no exclusions are given.

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