evaluations_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only list operation and adds the nontrivial constraint that filters are mandatory, but it does not mention authorization/privacy considerations for grade data, pagination, ordering, or the shape of returned records.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the only non-obvious rule follows immediately, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 simple filtered list operation, the description plus fully documented schema gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: what is listed, the mandatory filter condition, and the filter fields. It could be slightly richer by clarifying whether multiple filters combine with AND semantics and what the response records contain, but those gaps are minor.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful cross-parameter semantic: the tool is invalid without at least one of the three key filters, which is not apparent from the individually optional schema fields. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'List evaluations (grades)', which is a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical immediately clarifies that evaluations mean grades. The name and description together make it distinct from all listed sibling tools, none of which target evaluations.

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 states a hard invocation precondition: at least one of student_id, course_id, or evalterm_id must be provided. This gives clear guidance on how to use the tool, even though it does not discuss when to prefer another tool because no sibling offers an overlapping evaluations endpoint.

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