list_grades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key runtime/per-school behavior ('discovered at runtime') and that it returns grade_id values for other tools. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects or permissions, which an agent might need to know. For a simple list tool the lack is minor, but the description could be more explicit.

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 tightly written: two short sentences plus an Args bullet. It front-loads the core purpose and downstream usage, with zero fluff. The structure is easy to scan and every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present (though not shown here), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers what the tool does, why it is used (grade_id for add_student/edit_student), the per-school runtime behavior, and the prerequisite for the parameter. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly in the intended workflow.

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 0% (the schema has no description for school_id). The description compensates by stating 'school_id: School ID (from list_schools),' which explains the parameter's meaning and origin. This is sufficient for an integer parameter, though it could add more detail about format or constraints.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'List a school's grades with their grade_id values.' It also specifies the intended downstream use (add_student / edit_student), which distinguishes it from the many other list_* siblings. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly says the grade_id is 'needed for add_student' and to 'use the returned grade_id with add_student / edit_student.' It also explains that grades are per-school and discovered at runtime, implying you must call this per school. The Args line points to list_schools as the source for the school_id, giving a clear prerequisite workflow.

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