Academic Standing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' signals a read operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, session needs, or any latency/error behavior. It adds no behavioral context beyond the bare fact that data is returned.

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, short sentence with the primary action front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though 'semester-by-semester GPA' followed by 'semester GPA' is slightly redundant and could confuse.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for a simple data-retrieval operation. It names the key data categories returned, though it does not provide usage context or authentication notes.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context about the returned fields, which is useful even though parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 ('Return') and resource ('academic standing') and lists concrete output components: semester-by-semester GPA, credit, and class-level history. It is clear enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping tools like obs_get_transcript.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obs_get_transcript, obs_get_grades, or obs_get_course_history. The description simply states what it returns, leaving all selection decisions to the agent.

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