Grade breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description earns credit for disclosing what the call returns (assessment-level point breakdown), which is genuine context beyond the structured fields.

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 with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-param, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and a well-documented schema, the definition is nearly sufficient; the only gap is that it does not explicitly tie itself to itmo_get_grades as the prerequisite call.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the source hint 'entry_id from itmo_get_grades'. The description adds only 'one record book entry' as context, so the schema does the heavy lifting — the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (points breakdown) and enumerates the returned components (assessments, min/max points, received points) scoped to a single record book entry. Clear enough to distinguish the scope from a list tool, but it never names itmo_get_grades as the parent/sibling, so the differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase 'for one record book entry' and the schema hint 'entry_id from itmo_get_grades' imply this is a drill-down following a grades listing, but the description itself states no when-to-use condition or explicit alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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