List Grading Periods

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the "Read-only" sentence is largely redundant. The genuinely additive part is the edge-case disclosure that an empty list is returned when the course does not use grading periods, which tells the agent how to interpret a null result.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by the safety and edge-case notes. No filler or restated title verbatim beyond what's useful.

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 does the work of naming returned fields and the empty-result case, which is sufficient for a simple single-parameter read. Minor gaps remain (no note on ordering, pagination, or whether all grading periods or only current ones are returned), but nothing critical.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% — the schema identifies course_id, its numeric-string format, and a discovery path via list_courses. The description adds nothing beyond "a course's", so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("list a course's grading periods") and clarifies the domain with an example ("e.g. quarters"). It also enumerates the attributes returned (start, end, close dates), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_grading_standard or list_blackout_dates.

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 course scoping, and the schema points the agent to list_courses for the ID, but the description never states when to prefer this over related tools (e.g. get_grading_standard, list_blackout_dates) or any preconditions/permissions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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