upc_shiguang_report_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond them: it relies on the observed report-card AJAX contract, omits student number and internal DB IDs, and explicitly says the page's PDF button is client-side only and not implemented as a server export. That last point prevents a false expectation about export behavior. It does not describe return shape or failure modes, keeping it below 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two caveats that each earn their place. No redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source contract, identity scoping, and a notable limitation (no PDF export). The lack of any hint about returned fields is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

Only one parameter (session_ref with a const of 'self') and 0% schema description coverage, but the description's phrase 'the bound user's' effectively clarifies that the parameter scopes to the authenticated session rather than an arbitrary student. With one constrained parameter, this is adequate; baseline 3 applies since there is little parameter surface to explain.

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: reading the bound user's structured Shiguang report-card records. It is distinguishable from the many sibling upc_shiguang_* tools (activities, credits, participations), though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use for related report-card needs.

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?

Implies usage (fetch the authenticated user's report-card data) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The note that student number and internal DB IDs are omitted hints at a constraint but not a selection rule.

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