calculate_ects_credits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool 'returns expected workload and balance', but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This lack of detail is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a cross-reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, with no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description explains the input-output relationship and the core use case. Although it does not detail the return format (but an output schema exists, reducing that burden), it leaves room for ambiguity on precision or rounding. Overall, it is fairly complete for a straightforward calculator.

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 (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the ECTS conversion (1 ECTS ≈ 25-30 study hours) and stating what the tool returns ('expected workload and balance'), providing meaningful context 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 clearly states the verb 'estimate' and the resource 'ECTS credit workload', and provides context for university course planning in Europe. It mentions the approximate conversion and expected outputs. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, it references list_bundles for related calculators, which provides some guidance.

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 explains when to use (university course planning across Europe) and points to list_bundles for related 'education' calculators. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and provides an alternative approach.

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