Get My Grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful scoping behavior ('If course_id is omitted, returns grades across all enrolled courses') but does not disclose any return format or additional side effects; this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every clause contributes useful information about scope and optionality.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. The main gap is that 'grade data' is somewhat unspecified (e.g., points, percentage, letter grade), but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity keep this from being a major deficiency.

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 schema already explains course_id as 'The Canvas course ID (omit for all courses)'. The description essentially repeats the same parameter guidance, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 says 'Get grade data for the authenticated student', which uses a specific verb and resource and immediately establishes it as a read tool for the current user's grades. The optional course_id behavior further clarifies scope, and this clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like grade_submission or project_grade.

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?

The description clearly tells the agent when to use the tool: to retrieve grade data for the authenticated student, with explicit behavior when course_id is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection among grading-related siblings.

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