Get Outcome Alignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the filtering scope but does not mention pagination, result shape, or whether alignments include assignment-level and question-level associations. 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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states optional filters. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 getter with complete parameter documentation and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it could benefit from clarifying what an "outcome alignment" represents and what the response will include, especially since there is no output schema.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description merely restates that student_id and assignment_id are optional filters, adding no meaningful semantics 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Get outcome alignments for a course, optionally filtered to a specific student or assignment." It clearly identifies the scope (course) and optional filters (student, assignment), and the term "alignments" distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outcome_results, get_outcome_rollups, and get_outcome_mastery_distribution.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative outcome-related tools. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or direct siblings, leaving the agent without selection context beyond the basic purpose.

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