Get My Outcome Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' in the description adds nothing new. The one genuine addition is 'from rubric-graded work', which discloses that only rubric-scored submissions contribute to the scores — useful, but the description says nothing about authorization scope or what a mastery score contains.

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 purpose followed by safety and the alternative routing. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is nearly sufficient; the description tells the agent what per-outcome data it returns and where it comes from. Without an output schema, it could say slightly more about what a mastery score record includes, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example format and a pointer to list_courses for obtaining it. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get your mastery scores on each of a course's learning outcomes') plus the data source ('from rubric-graded work'). It also names the sibling get_outcome_rollup, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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: use get_outcome_rollup when a single rolled-up score per outcome is wanted, otherwise use this tool for per-outcome detail. The alternative and its selecting condition are named directly.

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