get_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 by structured data. The description adds useful return-content context (weighted grades, percentages, qualitative teacher feedback) but says nothing about permissions, data freshness, or edge cases like a course with no grades.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates returned content. No filler, though the closing enumeration is slightly padded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so adequately (weighted grades, percentages, qualitative feedback). For a one-parameter read-only tool this is essentially complete; only ambiguity about empty/partial gradebooks remains.

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 field itself explains that course_id is the numeric ID of the subject. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb ('Obtiene') plus a precise resource ('libro de calificaciones completo de una materia') and an enumeration of what it contains (weighted grades, percentages, qualitative feedback). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_assignment or list_courses, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should be used when the full gradebook of a specific course is needed. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools such as get_assignment or list_courses.

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