blackboard_get_grade_detail

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it warns that grade.status is an unreliable historical field and that this tool does not compute final grade or submission status, which forecloses a real misinterpretation of the returned data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields before the reliability caveat. Every clause earns its place; only the terse enumeration of fields borders on list-like density.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming the main fields returned plus a reliability warning. It leaves parameter usage under-specified, but the core picture is complete for an agent to call it.

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 0% across three parameters. The description alludes to the column ('nota propia de una columna') and to attempts ('intentos accesibles'), hinting at includeAttempts, but never explains the required courseId/columnId ID format or what includeAttempts toggles, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource: returns the student's own grade for a single column, enumerating what it contains (displayGrade, comments, exemption, metadata, accessible attempts). This is clearly differentiated in substance from sibling grade-list tools, though it never names an alternative like blackboard_get_grades or blackboard_get_grade_columns to route the agent 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The closing clause 'no calcula nota final ni estado de entrega' is a scope caveat about outputs, not a usage rule, so the agent must infer appropriateness on its own.

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