Sport points history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope by naming the award sources (lessons, competitions), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how complete the history is. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and a compact parenthetical for the award sources. It is slightly thin rather than padded, but nothing is wasted.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned at a high level but omits any sense of ordering, volume, or pagination. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent planning to consume the result.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single semester_id parameter already documents its source tool and default behavior ('current if omitted'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (physical education point awards) and its scope (a sports semester), with a parenthetical listing the award sources (lessons, competitions). It is clearer than the bare title, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling sport tools such as itmo_get_sport_competitions, which the mention of 'competitions' could actually blur.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like itmo_get_sport_status or itmo_get_sport_competitions. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'for a sports semester', leaving the agent to infer the selection condition.

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