Get AlmaEsami Exam History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds that the data is for the 'authenticated student', which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the key data fields. Every part adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the fields returned. However, it could be more complete by indicating whether the result is an array or single object, or if pagination applies. Given the simple nature and presence of annotations, the description is mostly sufficient.

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 input schema describes 3 parameters with 67% coverage (cookies and session_id have descriptions). The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Given the coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'reads' and names the resource 'AlmaEsami exam history' with a parenthetical Italian term and a list of fields ('appello date, activity, examiner, type/mode, and status'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like almaesami_list_appelli or almaesami_get_exam_plan, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage context by stating 'authenticated student', but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need for a valid session) or scenarios where other exam tools would be more appropriate. A clearer indication of when to choose this over almaesami_get_exam_plan or almaesami_list_appelli would raise the score.

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