List grades across all courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope constraints (only the current user's data, only active courses), but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how grades are structured per course. Coverage of behavior beyond the name is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint is stated immediately and every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only carrier of return-value information. It says the result contains enrollments and grades but not how they are grouped, whether grade values are final/current, or what empty results look like — a gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly adds no invented parameter discussion.

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 verb (List) and resource (enrollments and grades) with clear scope: the current user, across all active courses. The 'all active courses' scope implicitly separates it from the per-course sibling get_course_grades, though that sibling is never named.

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 is only implied by the scope phrase 'across all active courses' — an agent can infer this is the aggregate view versus the course-specific get_course_grades. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named.

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