get_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot express: the tool requires an authenticated HISinOne session via login or environment credentials, and it confirms 'read-only', which is consistent with the hints.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what is read and what comes back, the second covers the auth prerequisite and read-only nature. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is close to complete: it names the data returned (module, exam, grade, status) and the authentication requirement. Only failure behaviour (e.g. what happens without a valid session) is left unstated, a minor gap given the low complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the scoring rules. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed here.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Liest die persönliche HISinOne-Leistungsübersicht') and enumerates the fields it surfaces (Modul, Prüfung, Note, Status). The purpose is unmistakable and naturally distinct from the sibling tools (search_courses, get_course, get_timetable), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name — call this to read your own grades — and the prerequisites (a session from `hisinone login` or HISINONE_USER/HISINONE_PASSWORD env vars) are stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_course.

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