list_official_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that unpublished or missing results are not inferred, and that pagination fields describe coverage of the current response only. This is meaningful additional transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and distinguishes it from Brightspace, the second gives pagination instructions, and the third clarifies a behavioral boundary. No fluff, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 paginated read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it reads, how to paginate, and what it does not infer. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the response shape, but with no output schema and a simple list operation, the pagination instructions largely compensate. The distinction from Brightspace gradebooks also helps contextualize the tool within the larger sibling set.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explicitly explain 'limit' or 'offset' parameters. It does mention pagination concepts (nextOffset, hasMore) which indirectly relate to offset, but it doesn't add direct semantic value for the parameters themselves. With 0% schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate because the description partially compensates through pagination context but doesn't fully document the parameters.

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 page of official OSIRIS results from My TU Delft, explicitly distinguishing it from Brightspace course gradebooks. The verb 'Read' plus the resource 'official OSIRIS results' makes the purpose unambiguous, and the distinction from Brightspace gradebooks differentiates it from sibling tools like get_my_grades.

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 explicitly explains pagination usage: 'Continue with nextOffset while hasMore is true' and clarifies that 'complete describes coverage of this response only.' It also implicitly distinguishes this from Brightspace gradebooks, which helps an agent choose this tool over get_my_grades or list_assignments. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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