course_grade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the rich payload shape (items, feedback, dates), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not discuss permissions or any nuances of the data, so it sits at a solid 3 given annotation coverage.

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 that packs the return shape without redundant clauses. It is appropriately sized for the tool and every element 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values further; it focuses on what the tool is and its single input. The only small gap is explicit routing versus sibling grade tools, which is minor given the clear single-course scope.

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 only one parameter (course_id), and with 0% schema description coverage the description does not add syntax beyond 'for one course'. Per rule, 0-param baseline is 4; with one required simple identifier parameter and the description scoping the resource to one course, 4 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 specific verb-and-resource (grade breakdown for one course) and enumerates what is returned: course total, percentage/letter, and every grade item with grade, range, weight, feedback and dates. This distinguishes it from siblings like current_grades and grade_history, which are not scoped to a single course detail view.

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 usage via 'for one course' and requires course_id, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus current_grades or grade_history. The single-course detail focus is implied, not stated as a selection rule.

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