get_curriculum_progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the authentication requirement, the exact NOT_AUTHENTICATED recovery chain (get_captcha → login → retry), and the VTOP_USERNAME/VTOP_PASSWORD env-var fallback. This is precisely the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and return contents are front-loaded, and the sentences each carry information (scope, example questions, auth recovery). The auth narrative is somewhat long and slightly run-on, but nothing is filler.

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 return-value disclosure and does so by enumerating the reported sections (credits, categories, baskets, CGPA, grade counts). Combined with the auth-failure handling, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 of 4 applies and there is nothing param-level to disambiguate. The description correctly spends no space on inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (get degree progress) and enumerates exactly what is returned: credits earned vs required, per-category and per-basket breakdown, CGPA, and grade-letter counts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_curriculum_baskets or get_pending_subjects, which cover narrower slices.

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 user-question triggers ('how many credits left?', 'how close am I to graduating?', 'which baskets do I still need?') that make the intended use unambiguous. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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