Get Proficiency Trends

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond it: the data is anonymized, aggregated across all users, and broken out by skill and period. This helps an agent understand the scope and nature of the returned data without contradicting the annotation.

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 two concise sentences with the core action and resource front-loaded. It includes the essential scoping detail, the dimensions, the aggregation behavior, and a use case without redundancy.

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 the low complexity (one optional parameter, readOnly annotation, no required inputs, no nested schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call the tool and what to expect. It explains the resource, the dimensions, the aggregation, and the intended value, with the parameter already documented in the schema.

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%, with the single 'limit' parameter fully documented including default, minimum, and maximum. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that burden.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the exact resource: proficiency score history over time. It further specifies the dimensions (overall, listening, reading, speaking, writing) and the aggregation scope (anonymized across all users), making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools focused on error patterns, sessions, or narratives.

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 final sentence gives a clear use case: 'tracking whether content improvements translate to learner gains.' This provides explicit context for when the tool is useful, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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