Get Course Grades

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: ungraded evaluations show no mark, and evaluations not entered in Lea will be absent entirely. That helps an agent interpret incomplete results, though it does not cover permissions, rate limits, or return 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then two short sentences add distinct caveats and a reconciliation action. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or bloated setup.

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 read-only tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand what is returned and the major data-completeness caveats. It could be slightly stronger with a hint about the shape or grouping of returned evaluations and grades, but it is broadly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both term_id and course_id documented in the schema, so parameter meaning is already well covered. The description reinforces that the course is specific but adds no format or syntactic 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 verb and resource set: retrieve evaluations, grades, and course summary for a specific course. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the similar sibling get-grades-summary or clarify its relationship to get-course-info.

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 by the focus on a specific course, and the description usefully warns to reconcile against the syllabus. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as get-grades-summary or get-course-assignments.

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