Get Study Progress Check

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It partially does by disclosing that the audit runs against 'assigned monitoring templates' and by enumerating what the response reports, but it omits permission/auth requirements, what happens when no templates are assigned, and whether the audit is a heavy or rate-limited operation.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and functional: purpose first, returned data second. The only mild drag is the untranslated parenthetical and the unexplained phrase 'assigned monitoring templates', but neither is padding.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and its stated response contents are a helpful preview. For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with zero annotations the missing note about it being a read-only audit and about template prerequisites leaves a real gap.

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 is a single optional study_id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the auto-discovery fallback when it is omitted. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Perform official degree audit check (Kontrola průchodu studiem)', and it names the payload the tool returns (required course groups, completed/enrolled courses, missing requirements). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the closest sibling, get_study_credit_summary, so an agent still has to compare the two by inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The description never says how this official audit differs from get_study_credit_summary or get_enrolled_courses, nor does it state any prerequisite such as having monitoring templates assigned, which it implies are required.

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