Summarise grade standing per course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, carrying the safety and stability profile, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds no further behavioral disclosure beyond the aggregate computation itself (e.g., no mention of rate limits, result format, or how open-world data affects the numbers); with annotations in place, that is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 with zero wasted words: the computational result is front-loaded, followed by one usage directive. It reads quickly and conveys everything needed without redundancy.

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 aggregation tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and annotations, the description covers what is computed and when to call it. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by naming the returned summary values, though the exact response shape is left unspecified.

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 100%, and the sole parameter (maxCourses) is fully documented with type and bounds, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no meaning for the parameter, which aligns with the baseline 3 when the schema is complete.

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 ('computes') and a precise resource (grade standing per course), enumerating exactly what is produced: number of graded items, running points total, and average percentage. It signals its distinction from sibling tools by contrasting 'how am I doing overall?' with 'listing every item,' though it never names the sibling (e.g., bb_list_grades).

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool ('how am I doing overall?' questions) and what it is NOT for ('rather than listing every item'). This gives real routing context against the itemized grade-list tools, but it stops short of naming alternative tools explicitly, so an agent must infer which sibling to pick instead.

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