iis_get_markbook

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

The annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so this adds value by describing what is returned (grade book number, GPA, per-semester grades across exams/credits/coursework) — meaningful context given no output schema exists. It stops short of saying whether the result is scoped to the caller only or whether pagination/limits apply.

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?

Two short sentences: the purpose first, the return contents second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the return payload. The only real gap is the lack of any disambiguation from the very similar iis_get_grade_book sibling.

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 (empty schema), so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required by tying it to the authorized student.

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 ('Получить электронную зачётную книжку') scoped to the authorized student, and enumerates the returned content (record-book number, GPA, grades by semester/subject). However it does not differentiate from the near-duplicate sibling iis_get_grade_book, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites beyond 'authorized student', and no mention of any alternative — notably it never says how it differs from iis_get_grade_book or iis_get_mark_sheets/iis_get_omissions. The agent gets no routing help.

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