Teacher gradebook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned ('per-exam totals and student marks') and the optional filtering, but does not disclose other behaviors such as default scope, data volume, or response shape.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then states the optional filters. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 retrieval tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns and how to narrow results. It could mention the default behavior when no filters are supplied, but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented with 'Optional class id filter' and 'Optional subject id filter'. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource ('teacher gradebook') with content ('per-exam totals and student marks'). This is clear and distinct from the sibling tools such as ictexam_list_exams or ictexam_get_exam, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when gradebook-level data across exams and students is needed. It also indicates the optional filters. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like ictexam_get_exam or ictexam_item_analysis.

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