boardsesh_get_grade_pyramid

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive nature. The description adds useful context beyond that: output ordering ('hardest first'), inclusion of flash rates, and the domain fact that grades differ between boards, which helps interpret results.

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 short, purposeful sentences with the core result front-loaded. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place by covering what, when, and how to handle the optional filter.

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 covers the tool's purpose, trigger conditions, and board-filter guidance. With only one optional parameter and an output schema present, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already covers the board parameter thoroughly (list of board types and 'Omit for all boards'). The description adds extra meaning with the decision rule 'prefer filtering to one board when the user names one,' which goes beyond the schema and aids parameter selection.

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's function: 'Return the user's send pyramid: sends per grade, hardest first, with flash rates.' This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like boardsesh_get_grades and boardsesh_get_summary.

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 gives explicit trigger cases ('pyramid, grade distribution, flash rate per grade, or how solid they are at a level') and advises preferring a board filter when the user names a board. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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