get_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. What it does add beyond annotations is the permission requirement and the fact that the default behavior silently reads an additional dataset (absNoten), which changes the payload shape. It does not say what happens when the permission is missing or what the returned grade records look like.

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?

It is short with no filler, and the default-value fact is stated up front where it matters. But leading with an internal service identifier rather than the resource hurts front-loading, and 'Read-only' duplicates the annotations, so a sentence is spent on zero-information content.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the data source, the default parameter behavior, the permission gate, and safety. It falls short on explaining what the returned grade data contains and what 'absNoten' vs 'noten' actually means, which is the key ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does supply the one thing the schema omits: includeAverages defaults to true and gates whether absNoten is also read. That is meaningful behavioral semantics, not just a restatement of the boolean. The only gap is that 'absNoten' is never explained, leaving the parameter's practical effect partly opaque.

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 verb/resource is stated but only via the internal endpoint name 'wbservicesbasic.noten', which is domain jargon rather than a plain-language statement of purpose. Naming 'absNoten' as a second dataset read adds some specificity, yet an agent without the internal glossary cannot tell exactly what it gets back. No sibling differentiation is offered, though none of the listed siblings appear to be grade-related.

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?

'Requires the grades right' is a genuine precondition that tells the agent when the call will fail, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool, no mention of how it relates to identity/course tools that likely scope the grades, and no exclusion conditions.

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