alphaportal_list_grades

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as read-only, and the description reinforces that with 'List'. It goes beyond the annotation by specifying the exact return shape (id and name), which is useful behavioral context. No pagination or limits are mentioned, but for a zero-parameter, likely small dataset this is acceptable.

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, tight sentence that contains only essential information: the action, the target, and the output fields. No filler, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the verb. Perfectly efficient.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: what it returns and that it is a list. There is no missing context that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately conveys that no inputs are required by stating it simply lists grade levels.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('district grade levels'), and explicitly names the returned fields ('id + name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like alphaportal_list_students or alphaportal_list_schools, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 makes its purpose unmistakable: it is the tool for listing grade levels. While it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, the resource name is self-selecting among the sibling tools, giving an agent a clear context for when to invoke it. It lacks explicit exclusions but none are necessary given the clarity.

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