School MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It effectively communicates the data source characteristics ('live'), calculation methodology ('unweighted', '4.0 scale'), and the complete return structure (per-course breakdown with specific fields), though it omits error handling or permission requirements.

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 consists of two efficiently structured sentences. The first establishes the operation (compute GPA), and the second details the return value. Every clause adds value without repetition of the schema or arbitrary verbosity.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return values (unweighted GPA, scale, and detailed per-course breakdown structure). Combined with behavioral details and zero parameters needing explanation, the description is complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter documentation, though it implicitly confirms the tool handles data sourcing internally by referencing 'live gradebook data'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('GPA from live gradebook data'), clearly distinguishing this from mere retrieval tools like 'get_gradebook' or 'get_report_cards'. It further differentiates by specifying the calculation method ('unweighted', '4.0 scale') and the detailed output structure.

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 provides implied usage guidance by emphasizing 'Compute' and 'live gradebook data', suggesting this is for current calculated values rather than official records. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or named alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., when to prefer this over 'calculate_grade_needed' or 'get_grade_summary').

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