ic_list_assessments

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

Annotations already establish a safe (readOnlyHint) open-world read, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: calendarID is auto-resolved per enrollment and one entry is returned per enrollment, plus a caveat that record shape varies by district and fields pass through unchanged. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then resolution/return behavior, then the shape caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler, though the third sentence is dense and could be tightened.

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 list tool, most of the load is carried by annotations and the schema's view documentation; the description fills the remaining need by describing the return granularity (one entry per enrollment) and shape variance, which matters since no output schema exists. Only the undocumented district parameter and absent pagination/ordering detail keep it from a 5.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the baseline sits near 3, and the description adds no parameter-level detail at all. The schema already carries a thorough explanation of the view enum and the studentId source, but the required district parameter is undocumented in both places, a gap the description does not close.

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 and resource ("List a student's standardized test scores") and immediately disambiguates the resource as state/national/district tests, which separates it from course-grade siblings like ic_list_grades and ic_list_assignments. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the data type; there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for choosing this over ic_list_grades, and no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer the boundary between "assessments" and sibling list tools on its own.

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