grades

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety and non-exhaustiveness profile, so the description is not required to restate them. It adds the output-scope detail that all grade items are returned, but no behavioral quirks like pagination, freshness, or matching ambiguity are disclosed.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one clear summary sentence followed by a single documented arg. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the input format and the returned content adequately. It omits only sibling-selection guidance, which is already penalized under usage guidelines, and ambiguity handling, which is minor for this level of complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by defining the course parameter as a code, numeric id, or name fragment and giving the CS-214 example. This is materially more useful than the bare string property in the schema, though it doesn't address ambiguous matches.

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 the resource (grades) and exactly what it returns: every grade item with score, range, percentage, and feedback, scoped to a course. That clearly conveys an information-retrieval purpose and separates it from announcements or deadlines by content, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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 siblings such as course_overview or list_courses, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The only hint is the word 'grades', which weakly implies use when grade details are needed.

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