kreta_class_averages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destuctiveHint=false, and the description's 'lekérese' is consistent with a read operation. The description adds only the group-scope detail and does not disclose authentication, pagination, or other behavioral nuance, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 a single, uncluttered sentence with no repeated information from the name or schema. Every word contributes to the action and scope, making it highly concise.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so those do not need to be repeated. However, the definition lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, leaving it minimally viable but incomplete for correct tool selection in ambiguous cases.

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?

Input-schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about 'child' or 'limit'. With only property names and defaults available, an agent receives no added meaning about what values are valid or how the parameters affect the request.

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 a specific action and resource: retrieving class averages available to the student's groups. It is distinguishable from siblings like kreta_evaluations or kreta_class_groups by resource type, but it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling read tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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