School MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the sorting behavior (lowest-to-highest) and scope (all courses). However, lacks details on output format, handling of ungraded courses, or whether the operation is read-only/safe.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and sorting logic; second sentence provides usage rationale. Every word 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 zero parameters and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. Minor gap: without an output schema, could have briefly described return structure (e.g., 'returns list of course names with current scores').

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (trivially). Description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter documentation. Baseline 4 appropriate for parameterless tools.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') + resource ('courses') + distinctive behavior ('sorted by current grade from lowest to highest'). The sorting detail clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_failing_or_low_grades (filtered) or get_gradebook (likely unsorted raw data).

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?

Provides implied usage context ('Quick overview to see which classes need the most attention') suggesting when to use it (prioritization). However, lacks explicit guidance on when to choose alternatives like get_failing_or_low_grades (for only at-risk courses) or get_gradebook (for full data).

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