ic_list_recent_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that filtering happens server-side via scoreModifiedDate and defaults to a 14-day window, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or how a missing student/district is handled.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then the parameter control. Slight redundancy between the description's since guidance and the schema's identical note, but no filler.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description covers the recency scope and cutoff default adequately, but leaves the district parameter's meaning and the response shape (delegated to the enum in schema) unaddressed.

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 50%: `view` and `since` are documented in the schema, while `district` and `studentId` have no description anywhere. The description echoes the since semantics already stated in the schema and only hints at studentId ("for a student"), leaving district entirely unexplained, so it does not fully compensate for the gap.

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 recently-graded assignments") and scopes it to a single student, which implicitly separates it from the broader ic_list_grades and ic_list_assignments. However, it never names those siblings or states the difference explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 word "recently-graded" and the 14-day default imply the use case, and the since parameter gives a control for widening it. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like ic_list_grades for the full history.

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