calculate_parcoursup_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states it returns an estimated score, implying a calculation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly declare safety (e.g., read-only) or explain any limitations.

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 short and front-loaded, but includes a redundant and inaccurate sentence about inputs per subject. This wastes space and could confuse, reducing effectiveness.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and target audience. However, the inaccuracy about inputs and lack of detail on expected output format (e.g., score range) leave gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description mentions 'grades and coefficients per subject' which is inconsistent with the actual parameters (bac_average and option_bonus). This misleads about the input structure, detracting from clarity.

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 it estimates Parcoursup admission score from bac and lycée grades, specifying the context of French university candidates. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_bac_points, only pointing to a bundle list.

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 French university candidates' providing context, but does not mention when not to use or compare with alternatives. It suggests looking at list_bundles for related calculators, offering some guidance but not definitive usage boundaries.

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