iis_get_mark_sheets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the returned documents represent (retakes, debts, admissions), but says nothing about scope, filtering, or response shape beyond that.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and uses the parenthetical to enumerate document types. No wasted words, though it is minimal enough that it could have afforded one clause of routing guidance.

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 read tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is serviceable: it tells the agent what set of documents comes back. But with several near-duplicate academic-records siblings, the absence of any disambiguation leaves a real gap in how an agent would choose this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 and resource ('Получить экзаменационные ведомости и направления студента') and adds the content scope (пересдачи, задолженности, допуски), which helps distinguish it from siblings like iis_get_markbook or iis_get_grade_book. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those closely named siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 iis_get_markbook, iis_get_grade_book, or iis_get_omissions, all of which overlap in the academic-records space. The parenthetical content list hints at scope but stops short of telling the agent when this is the right call.

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