calculate_bac_points

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'estimate' and 'returns weighted average and mention,' but does not explicitly state it is a read-only calculation with no side effects. The lack of detail on any constraints or potential issues leaves behavioral transparency weak.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage context and a reference to related tools. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 complexity (7 required parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the tool's purpose and output but lacks details on the calculation process or any prerequisites. The mention of 'weighted average and mention' is helpful, but more context on the Bac grading system would improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, including ranges and coefficients. The description's mention of 'grades by subject' adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool estimates the French Baccalauréat final score using grades and coefficients. The verb 'estimate' and specific resource 'French Baccalauréat final score' make the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like calculate_brevet_points, but the subject is distinct enough.

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 mentions using it to track lycée results before official scores, providing a clear use case. However, it does not specify when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives, only hinting at related education calculators via list_bundles.

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