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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation. It does not mention whether only published announcements are returned, ordering, pagination, permission requirements, or the shape of the result, leaving meaningful gaps for the agent.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no fluff. The phrase 'news/announcements' clarifies synonyms without adding unnecessary length, and the core resource is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but not complete: it omits what the response contains and whether the tool requires any special context. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about returned data would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, and the single courseId param already documents its meaning and source via list_courses. The description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond the schema; baseline 3 is warranted because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('news/announcements posted in a course'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_grades or get_assignments. It also aligns with the tool name and title without being tautological.

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 description implies usage: call this tool when you need course announcements. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus alternatives such as get_course_content, which could also conceivably surface announcements. The interaction with siblings is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read operation but does not mention what the returned data looks like, whether it can be empty, authentication expectations, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and scope, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, so the description covers the basic call context. However, since there is no output schema, the description could usefully clarify the expected return shape beyond 'folders and due dates', and it does not.

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%, and the sole parameter courseId is already documented as the orgUnitId from list_courses. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to because the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('dropbox/assignment folders and due dates'), and a scope ('for a course'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_grades and get_announcements without needing to open the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_course_content or get_calendar_events. The phrase 'for a course' implies context, but the description does not state when this tool is the right choice or when it is not.

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

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

With no annotations, the description itself must signal behavior; 'Get' clearly implies a read-only retrieval within the course scope. However, it does not disclose what the returned events look like, whether date-range filtering is available, pagination, or authentication expectations, so transparency is partial.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word carries meaning, and it is easy to scan quickly.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential what and scope, and the schema covers the parameter. It is less complete than ideal because it offers no usage guidance or return-value context and has no annotations to fall back on.

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% and the courseId property already explains that it is the course's orgUnitId from list_courses. The description's 'for a course' reinforces that single parameter but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('calendar events'), and a scope ('for a course'), so an agent can tell it retrieves course-calendar data rather than content, grades, or announcements. It doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of a sibling such as get_course_content or get_assignments. The phrase 'for a course' indicates a required parameter but provides no selection heuristics or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies read-only, and 'module/topic table of contents' indicates the response is a structural outline, but the description does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or nesting/pagination behavior. This is acceptable for a simple get but leaves some traits unstated.

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?

One compact sentence with a clear verb and object, no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and resource effectively.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, the schema is complete, and the description states the nature of the output as a module/topic table of contents. Without an output schema, the description does not detail the exact return structure, but for a basic read-only content outline this is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully describes courseId, including its source from list_courses. The description's phrase 'for a course' merely echoes the schema without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('module/topic table of contents for a course'), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_grades and get_assignments. The phrase 'table of contents' clearly narrows the scope to a structural overview, not the course content itself.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving course structure but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It also doesn't mention in the description that courseId comes from list_courses, though that is documented in the schema. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool fetches grade data; it does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, error cases, authorization needs, or explicitly affirm that it is read-only beyond the word 'Get'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, object, and scope with no filler. It avoids repeating the tool name and earns every word.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description names the returned concept (grade items and scores), and the schema fully documents the parameter. It does not describe edge cases or output formatting, but nothing critical is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the input schema already explains courseId as the orgUnitId from list_courses. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('grade items and scores') scoped to a course, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_assignments and get_course_content. 'Your' also clarifies that this returns the calling user's own grade data.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema mentions that courseId comes from list_courses, but the description itself provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a listing operation, read-only is implied, but the description does not confirm it or describe the output shape, which is a gap.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters or complex behavior.

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 straightforward list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It tells the agent what it lists, but does not specify what a course entry includes or whether the list is sorted, which could be relevant. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which is appropriate. No compensation is needed.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: courses the user is enrolled in on POLITEMall. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on content, grades, announcements, etc., so an agent can infer its role without additional detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use this to get an overview of your courses' or any exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a read-only identity lookup, which implies no side effects. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the identity includes roles, email, or other attributes, or whether authentication is required. For a simple identity tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words, no repetition of the title. It earns its place entirely.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (the identity of the authenticated user). The only minor gap is not specifying the shape of the identity object, but without an output schema, a bit more detail could help. Still, for such a simple tool, this is strong.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output concept (the user's identity) rather than inputs. No deduction needed.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('the currently authenticated POLITEMall user's identity'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch courses, grades, announcements, etc., by focusing on the authenticated user's identity rather than any domain data.

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 description implies usage context: call it when you need the current user's identity, which is a common prerequisite for personalization or authorization. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the distinction clear enough. A small deduction for not explicitly stating exclusions.

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