Get Outcome Results

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format, or permissions. It is consistent with annotations but does not go beyond them.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists optional filters. It is efficient, though the phrase 'alignment filters' is a minor imprecision for what is actually an include flag.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no nested objects, the description sufficiently conveys what will be returned: per-student outcome results for a course. It does not describe pagination or detailed response fields, but the overall shape and required input are clear.

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 schema carries the parameter documentation. The description loosely groups parameters as 'outcome, student, and alignment filters,' with 'alignment filters' likely referring to include_alignments, which is not really a filter but an inclusion flag. This adds some interpretive value but is slightly imprecise.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get per-student outcome results for a course.' It also identifies the optional outcome, student, and alignment filters. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but 'per-student' helps distinguish it from outcome rollup or mastery tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related outcome tools like get_outcome_rollups or get_outcome_alignments. The context is only implied by the phrase 'per-student outcome results'; there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use signals.

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