get_outcome_contributing_scores

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by specifying that the tool retrieves contribution scores rather than final outcome scores, which aligns with and supplements the annotations. No contradictions present.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having five parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure or how to interpret the results. It lacks details on what the output contains (e.g., scores per assignment/quiz, per student) and how optional parameters like user_ids affect results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add per-parameter details. It provides a general statement that matches the schema but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('assignment or quiz scores') along with the context ('contributed to a specific outcome') and scope ('for one or more students in a course'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like get_outcome_results or get_outcome_rollups that provide aggregated data.

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 only explains what the tool does without indicating when to use it versus alternatives. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit context for selection among similar tools like get_outcome_results.

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