Get Course Grade Breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. What does add value is the disclosure of return content (per-group weight, earned/possible points, weighted contribution), which compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the routing hint last. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back and points to a complementary tool. It does not clarify whether the breakdown reflects what-if overrides or unposted grades, a relevant distinction given the presence of what_if_grade and reset_what_if_grades siblings.

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 the schema documents course_id at 100% coverage including the format and how to obtain it via list_courses. The description's 'in one course' reinforces singleness of scope but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Break down your grade in one course') and enumerates the exact output components: group weight, points earned vs possible, weighted contribution. This clearly distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like get_all_grades or grade_impact_ranking.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to compute_needed_score for target-grade planning, which is a real decision boundary. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other grading siblings such as get_all_grades, get_grade_trend, or get_grading_standard, leaving some ambiguity in a crowded namespace.

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