calculate_bac_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns a weighted average and mention, and implies it is a read-only calculation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, data retention, or that all parameters are required (though schema covers that). Given the lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then inputs/outputs. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (7 required parameters, educational domain), the description covers purpose, usage context, inputs, and output format. The presence of an output schema further compensates, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Continuous assessment score (/720 = 40%)'). The description only reiterates 'Inputs: grades by subject with coefficients' without adding new meaning, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool estimates the French Baccalauréat final score, a specific resource, using a verb 'Estimate' and lists inputs and outputs. It distinguishes itself from other calculators by mentioning 'baccalaureat' and referencing list_bundles for related education tools.

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 when to use: 'Use to track lycée results before official scores.' It also guides to alternatives via 'See list_bundles for related education calculators.' However, it does not explicitly exclude other contexts or compare with similar calculators like calculate_brevet_points.

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