Latest grades

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description correctly spends its words on behavior instead: default 50 / max 1000, paged results, the dossier=examen variant, and that a next publication moment may be included. It stops short of describing ordering ties, page-token mechanics, or what an empty result looks like.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, but the most decision-relevant sentence ('Use this for...') is placed last, and the opening field enumeration delays the purpose. Slight reordering would make it stronger.

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?

With no output schema, the field list (subject, column, grade, weight, test type, period, date, remarks, resit) does necessary work, and paging plus sibling routing round it out. Missing only the multi-child leerlingId caveat and error/empty-case behavior.

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 coverage is already 100%, yet the description still adds meaning the schema lacks: dossier=examen maps to school-exam (SE) results, and paging behavior for limit. It does not mention leerlingId at all, relying on the schema for the multi-child requirement.

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 first sentence establishes the resource and ordering ('Newest results first') and enumerates the returned fields, and a later sentence explicitly contrasts it with grades and subject_grades. It's clear enough to pick without opening the schema, but the core purpose statement is buried in a field list rather than stated up front.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this for "what grades came in recently"' with two named alternatives and the condition that selects each ('short summary with averages' vs 'all columns of one subject'). Nothing is left to inference.

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