brightspace_get_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are limited to the signed-in user's own released grades, and 'missing values are not zero' warns against misinterpreting absent data. It says nothing about return format or pagination, but limit/offset are schema-documented.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero redundant wording. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no description of what a grade record contains, which an agent might want before consuming results.

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%, so limit, offset and courseId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the indirect constraint that values are scoped to the signed-in user's own released grades. Baseline 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?

It gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('released Brightspace grade values') plus a tight scope ('signed-in user's'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like brightspace_get_assignments or brightspace_get_assignment_rubrics. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 single exclusion 'this does not read Osiris' is a useful when-not signal, and 'released' implies unreleased grades will not appear. However, no alternative tool or explicit when-to-use condition is offered, so usage is only implied.

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