Study Priority Ranking

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so restating 'Read-only' adds nothing. The useful addition is that the ranking formula is included in the response so the agent can judge it, which is real behavioral context, but nothing is said about empty-state behavior or result shape beyond ordering.

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 verb and scope. The 'Read-only' sentence is wasted effort since annotations already cover it, but overall the text is tight.

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?

A single optional parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations meaning the description only needs to convey intent and scoring logic — both are present. The agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional 'days' parameter already documented as 'Default 14'. The description never mentions the lookahead window, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (rank) and scope (everything due soon across all courses), plus the three scoring factors that make it distinct. It does not name the closely related sibling grade_impact_ranking, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 'due soon' and the multi-factor score, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over grade_impact_ranking, get_week_ahead, or get_workload_forecast. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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