Get grades and credit points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the operation reads the entire achievement tree, including all degree programs, modules, exams, and attempts with their grades, statuses, and credit points, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds scope, result contents, and domain terminology 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 no-argument, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, this description is complete. It defines what the tool returns and enough context about the domain, leaving no gaps an agent would need to resolve before invoking it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parametersفق, and the schema coverage is 100% by default due to the empty properties object. The description reasonably provides no parameter details because there are no parameters needing explanation, so the baseline of 4 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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('full achievement tree'), and clarifies the portal's alternate name ('Leistungen'). It further defines the scope by enumerating degree programs, modules, exams, and attempts, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile or list_semesters.

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 clearly indicates when the tool is appropriate: whenever an agent needs grades, status, or credit points across the account's academic record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with this specific acquisition of full achievement data.

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