get_my_course_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description not needing to state safety is fine. The description adds the 'current' and 'across all courses' scope, which is useful context. However, it does not mention anything about the data freshness (e.g., real-time vs cached) or potential for empty results if not enrolled, which could be relevant given the read-only nature.

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 fully captures the tool's function. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action and scope. Perfectly efficient.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and scope. It is complete for the tool's simplicity. Slight deduction because it doesn't clarify the format of grades (e.g., letter, percentage) or whether it includes past course grades, but this is minor given the straightforward nature.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds no parameter info because there are none. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description correctly states the scope, which is the only relevant input context. No gaps here.

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 gets the user's current grades across all enrolled courses. It uses a specific verb ('get'), clarifies scope ('across all enrolled courses'), and differentiates from siblings like 'get_my_upcoming_assignments' or 'get_my_submission_status'.

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 it is for when the user wants grades for all courses, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'get_course_details' might be more appropriate for single-course specifics, or that 'get_my_submission_status' is for assignment-level info. Slight gap in proactive guidance.

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