GPA calculator

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: courses missing credits or with invalid grades are skipped and listed in the result, the 40-course cap, and the default 35–100 percent window. Return shape is only loosely sketched.

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 dense paragraph that leads with the three outputs before detailing scales and edge cases. Slightly packed, with the scale enumeration taking substantial space, but every sentence carries operative information.

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 8 params, a nested course array, and no output schema, the description must carry return-value context; it names the three computed figures and the skipped-course listing. Exact output field names are not given, which is the remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the terse schema: it spells out what each scale means ('4.3 (A+ = 4.3)', '5.0 (A+ 5, A 4.75 … F 1)') and that percentMin/percentMax default to 35 and 100, which the schema does not state.

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 opening clause names specific verbs and resources: credit-weighted semester GPA, cumulative GPA, and the required average for a target. It immediately tells an agent the three distinct computations available, which no sibling calc_* tool offers.

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?

It implicitly defines the conditions for each mode: supply previousGpa/previousCredits for cumulative output, and targetGpa with remainingCredits for the target average. It also states input constraints (max 40 courses, percent scale needs min/max). No explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion is given, but no sibling competes directly.

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