jcourse_get_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with that safe read profile. It adds real context the annotations don't: the data is scoped to the caller's own account, and pagination exists with defaults of 1/20, capped at 20, though that detail comes only from the 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?

It is a single compact clause with the resource named first and the scope exclusion second, so nothing is buried. It is arguably terse enough that an agent must infer the pagination behavior from the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish scope, which it does. Nothing essential is missing – the return shape is documented elsewhere and both parameters are self-describing – though a note on soft limits or auth requirements would have raised the score.

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 description coverage is 100% – page and page_size both carry their own Chinese descriptions with defaults and bounds – so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description implies paginated records ('积分记录') but adds no format or usage detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline here.

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: read ('读取') the caller's points total and points history. It also scopes the tool by excluding spending/transfer operations, so an agent immediately knows this is a read-only balance/history lookup.

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?

The phrase '读取我的' signals this covers only the authenticated user's own points, and the exclusion clause '不涉及积分消费或转账' tells the agent what not to expect from it. No sibling tool handles points, so no explicit alternative is needed, but it never states a when-to-use trigger beyond that.

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