Get grades

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds useful behavioral context about the two modes and the return fields. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens if a course has no graded submissions — these are minor gaps that prevent a higher score.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the most important behavioral distinction. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by removing the trailing em-dash phrase but overall is 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 only one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and readOnlyHint/true, the description covers the core behavior well. No output schema exists, but the description explains what fields are returned (assignment name, score, points possible, flags). A small improvement would be noting if results are paginated or sorted.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the behavioral difference between providing course_id (detailed breakdown) vs. omitting it (overview). This semantic distinction goes beyond the schema's description and justifies a 4.

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 a specific verb ('get') and two distinct resources depending on whether course_id is provided: current score/grade for active courses, or graded submissions with assignment name, score, points possible, and flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings like canvas_grade_breakdown by explaining the different granularity.

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 when to use each variant (without course_id vs. with course_id) and provides a concrete use case ('what's my grade breakdown'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar needs, so it falls 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.