get_outcome_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds clarifying context about filters and per-student granularity, which is helpful. No contradictions.

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-structured sentence immediately states the purpose and optional filters. No wasted words.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and the available filters. It does not describe return format, but this is acceptable given sibling tools often follow similar patterns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-document parameters. It groups filters as 'outcome, student, and alignment filters' (mapping to outcome_ids, user_ids, include_alignments), but adds no new semantic meaning 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 clearly states the action (Get per-student outcome results) and the resource (course), with optional filters. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 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?

While the description implies use for per-student outcome results, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_outcome_rollups for aggregate results. No when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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