boardsesh_get_grades

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by clarifying that grade scales are board-specific and that the result is a mapping—context that helps the agent trust and interpret the tool's output.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first line states exactly what the tool returns, and the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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 tool with a single optional parameter, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral caveat (board-specific scales). An agent can invoke this tool correctly with the information provided.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the parameter 'board' is already documented as 'Board type, e.g. kilter, tension, moonboard.' The description adds value by explaining why the board parameter matters ('Boards do not share one scale') and gives a concrete use case (passing min_grade_id), which enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a concrete resource ('a board's grade scale'), and the exact mapping ('difficulty_id to grade label'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that boards do not share one scale, making its role clear among the many boardsesh getters.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use when you need a difficulty_id for a grade the user named...' and when to reuse it for explaining grade IDs. It also warns that boards do not share one scale, which indirectly tells the agent not to assume a global grade system and to pass the correct board parameter.

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