get_course_grades

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, 429/5xx retries occur, and non-2xx responses surface as tool errors with specific status meanings. It also notes pagination behavior and that nothing is created or deleted.

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 front-loaded with a READ-ONLY tag and endpoint, then organized into behavior, parameters, returns, and use-when sections. It is somewhat long, but each sentence carries useful information and 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?

For a read-only GET tool with no output schema, it fully covers return format, error handling, auth, rate limits, pagination, and usage context. It also names related course tools, giving the agent enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds practical guidance on walking pages with `page` and sizing them with `items_per_page`, plus error semantics, though the 'limit of 20 grades per page' line sits awkwardly next to the schema's max of 200.

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: retrieves grades for all enrolled users in a specified course. It is clearly distinct from course CRUD siblings like get_course, update_course, or get_courses.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it — safe speculative lookups and reporting — and explicitly says not to use it for changing anything. It points to a 'matching write tool' but does not name a specific grade-write sibling, so the routing is slightly generic.

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