Get Outcome Alignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format, or side effects), but it also does not contradict the annotations. With annotations present, this is acceptable.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that states the action, resource, and optional filters with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage. It clearly communicates the purpose and available filters. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling outcome-related tools, but the name and purpose are distinct enough.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the optional filters (student_id and assignment_id) but adds minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema completeness.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'outcome alignments', scoped to a course with optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling outcome tools like list_outcome_groups or get_outcome_results, which perform different operations. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating it's for a course and optionally filtered, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the many outcome-related sibling tools, an agent might need clearer routing, but the core use case is evident from the name and description.

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