Get Results

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it is a clearly read-only get operation with modest risk. It discloses the declaration-state dimension of the data, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or freshness of results. With an output schema present, return shape need not be covered, so this is adequate but thin.

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 dense sentence with the primary payload first and the two modes parenthetically flagged; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical compression makes it slightly harder to scan than a clean two-sentence split would be.

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-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the meaning of the only branching decision. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already defines term_id in detail, including the examId cross-reference and null-grade behavior for undeclared terms. The description goes beyond that by explaining the mode switch the parameter triggers (rollup vs per-course), which is genuine added meaning, though the schema still 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 names the resource (semester results) and spells out the two distinct payloads it can return: an overall CGPA/percentage rollup plus per-term declaration state, or per-term course grades. That is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from get_courses or get_class_assessments, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit mode-selection rule tied to a parameter: omit term_id for the rollup view, supply term_id for per-course grades. That is actionable conditional guidance, but no alternative tool is named for cases where this one is the wrong choice.

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