calculate_brevet_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool estimates and returns points and mention, implying a read-only, non-destructive calculator. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as data persistence or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a simple calculator.

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 the purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, for whom, inputs/outputs, and a pointer to related tools. No 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 is a calculator with full schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, target users, inputs summary, output type, and related resources. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each of the 6 parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping ('grades by subject, continuous control') but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline is 3.

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 French Brevet (DNB) score from grades and continuous-control marks, specifically for collège students. This distinguishes it from related tools like calculate_bac_points for Baccalaureate.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for collège students forecasting their result.' This provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools directly. The reference to list_bundles for related calculators is helpful but indirect.

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