get_my_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the Purdue Restricted data classification and the requirement that the AI client be authorized for Restricted data before any results are returned. It omits other behavior such as whether unreleased grades are hidden or how empty results present themselves.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope stated first and the authorization constraint second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient: the data classification and authorization gate are the crucial non-obvious facts and both are present. The remaining gap is that the sole required parameter is wholly unexplained, which for a single-argument tool is a meaningful omission.

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?

There is a single parameter, course_id, with zero schema description coverage and no explanation in the description of its format, source, or validity constraints. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so an agent gets no help locating a valid course_id beyond guessing that list_courses supplies it.

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?

States a specific resource with narrowing qualifiers: "the student's own released grades in one course." That distinguishes it from list_assignments and assignment_submission_status, which cover assignment-level data rather than released final grades. The verb is only implicit (it never explicitly says "retrieves"), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied through the word "released" (i.e., not all grades) and the explicit authorization precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to sibling tools such as list_courses for obtaining a course_id or assignment_submission_status for ungraded work.

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