get_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The phrase 'if visible' adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat (results may be empty or hidden depending on course visibility settings), but there is no mention of permission requirements, what visibility depends on, or how partial results look.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the visibility caveat is placed where it matters. It is efficient though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully described. What is missing is the sibling disambiguation an agent needs to pick this tool over get_grades_overview and get_grades_access_info.

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 coverage is 100% and the single course_id parameter is well documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_courses. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?

States a verb and resource ('Get ... grade items for a course'), which is better than tautology, but leaves the exact substance of 'grade items' unclear and never distinguishes it from close siblings like get_grades_overview or get_grades_access_info. An agent cannot tell from the text which of the three grade tools returns what.

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 only guidance is the qualifier 'if visible', which hints that results may be withheld, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is named. With two sibling grade tools present, the absence of routing guidance leaves selection to guesswork.

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