get_my_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: only released assignment grades are returned because UG Sakai does not share gradebook, quiz or exam scores. It does not mention caching behavior tied to the refresh parameter, but the data-availability limit is meaningful added value.

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, grade scope front-loaded, followed by the availability constraint and the sibling routing. No filler and every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. It supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the institutional data-availability limitation and the correct alternative tool.

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%, with both 'course' (formats and source site_id) and 'refresh' (cache bypass) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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+resource ('the student's own released assignment grades for one course') and immediately scopes what data is available, explicitly diffentiating from gradebook/quiz/exam data. It also names the sibling it is not (get_assignment_feedback), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative for a related need ('Use get_assignment_feedback for the lecturer's comments'), which routes the agent correctly. It does not cover other nearby siblings such as list_assignments or get_assignment_details, and gives no explicit when-not beyond the feedback pointer.

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