portal_evaluations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only intent and grouping behavior, but it does not disclose what the by-date or trends views return, how results are structured, or any limitations or prerequisites. The 'grouped by subject' phrasing also creates mild ambiguity against the by-date and trends view options.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and target with zero filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with only one optional enum parameter, the description is nearly sufficient, but with no annotations or output schema it would benefit from clarifying what 'evaluations' includes and how the by-date and trends views behave. The current text leaves some behavioral gaps for the agent to discover.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single view parameter has an enum and a description ('Which evaluation view to fetch'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('grades and evaluations') and adds a clear grouping criterion ('by subject'). This helps distinguish it from siblings like portal_assignments, though the boundary with portal_exams is not explicitly drawn.

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 establishes an obvious use case—retrieving grades/evaluations—but gives no guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like portal_exams or portal_search would be preferable. An agent must infer the appropriate selection from the tool name and one-line description.

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