get_official_grade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it requires an exact ID and that it reads official OSIRIS results, which is useful but not extra behavioral detail like response format or error conditions.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraint (exact ID). 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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter, the description is sufficient for basic use. However, given no output schema and no mention of return format or potential errors, an agent might lack expected output details, but the tool's simplicity lowers the bar.

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 0% with only one parameter resultId. The description mentions 'exact ID' and reference to list_official_grades, which gives some semantic guidance, but it does not compensate for absence of schema documentation on the format or constraints like length or allowed characters.

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 reads a specific official OSIRIS result by ID, distinguishing it from list_official_grades which lists grades. It is not fully explicit about the distinction from other read tools like get_my_grades, but the context is specific 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 implies usage: read a result after obtaining its ID from list_official_grades, which gives clear context for when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_my_grades. It provides a enough guidance to route the agent.

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