get_course_work_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return content (missing flags, zero scores, excused state), the pagination requirement ('Follow every page'), and an explicit non-capability (no course average).

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of padding. The pagination instruction earns its place; wording is efficient throughout.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does (missing flags, zero scores, excused state, pagination). With read-only annotations covering safety and only 2 params, this is nearly complete; the gap is parameter-level meaning for courseId.

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 0%, so the schema only gives types/patterns, not meaning. The description partially compensates by implying pagination behavior via 'Follow every page', but adds nothing about courseId's semantics or the page/courseId relationship. Baseline 3 given the low coverage is earned only marginally.

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 ('Check missing work and assignment scores') and immediately differentiates from the sibling get_study_overview by noting it includes graded zeros an overview may omit. An agent can select this over get_study_overview without opening either 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?

Gives a clear usage context ('Use for missing-assignment or grade concerns') and a negative boundary ('Does not calculate a course average'), which steers agents away from expecting an aggregate. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for average/overview needs (e.g. get_study_overview).

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