Subject grades

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior: both dossiers are included unless dossier is set, column definitions include not-yet-graded columns, and composite tests are broken into parts. It stops short of covering pagination or error behavior, but the return-content disclosure is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return inventory, then the usage rule. The first sentence is dense with parenthetical lists and runs long, but every clause carries information an agent needs to interpret the output. Slightly tighter phrasing would make it a 5.

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 three parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: result columns, weights, remarks, definitions, composite parts, and dossier scoping. Missing only peripheral details like ordering or result limits, which are unlikely to affect correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning not in the schema: omitting 'vak' yields the subject list rather than an error, and omitting 'dossier' yields both progress and exam dossiers. Those default and omission semantics make the parameters materially easier to use.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ('Everything for one subject') and enumerates exactly what is returned: result columns, weights, remarks, column definitions including not-yet-graded ones, and composite test parts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from grades_overview, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this to drill into one subject; use grades_overview for all subjects at once.' It also documents the omitted-vak case ('the list of subjects'), which is real guidance for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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