Get grades

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the ordering (newest first), the grading scale (1 to 5), the presence of max_points and percent for point/percentage marks, and the per-subject summary. It also explains the term/school_year relationship. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the primary purpose and ordering, then details the grading scale, filters, and term selection. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core functionality, ordering, filtering, and term handling. The main gap is the unexplained 'student' parameter and the unspecified format of 'since'. These are notable but not critical for a read-only tool, making it fairly complete.

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 description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains subject (name or abbreviation), since (as a filter), school_year (starting year), and term (1 or 2) in the context of earlier terms. However, it does not explain the 'student' parameter at all, and the format of 'since' is not specified. It covers most parameters well but misses one and leaves some format details ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: returning a student's marks for the current term, newest first, with a per-subject summary. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by being specifically about grades, and it details the grading scale and output fields. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use the parameters: it explains that the current term is default and that passing school_year and term fetches an earlier term. It also mentions filtering by subject and since, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_homework or get_absences. The usage guidance is strong but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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