get_outcome_contributing_scores

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds context about assignment/quiz scores and multiple students, but does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limit, or interpretation of 'contributing').

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information (verb, resource, context), no extraneous words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. Description explains basic purpose but omits details on return format, pagination, or edge cases. Annotations partially compensate, but description could be more complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are well-documented. Description mentions 'one or more students' relating to user_ids but adds no significant semantic detail 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?

Description clearly states verb (get), resource (assignment or quiz scores that contributed to a specific outcome), and context (course, students). It distinguishes from sibling outcome tools like get_outcome_results and get_outcome_rollups by specifying 'contributing scores'.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving contributing scores but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar outcome tools (e.g., get_outcome_results, get_outcome_rollups) or conditions/requirements.

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