Archive: Grade Distribution

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral context an agent cannot get elsewhere: same_counts_as terms must not be summed, absent labels mean 'not published' rather than zero, total_mismatch keeps both figures, and coverage can report branch_grades_missing. It does not mention auth or pagination, so not a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries a real caveat (related_codes, same_counts_as, total_mismatch, coverage). It is delivered as one dense semicolon-chained paragraph rather than clearly separated sentences, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, yet the description still supplies the semantic meaning behind its flags, which is the genuinely useful part. The main remaining gap is the optional 'term' parameter's format and default behavior.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies course_code semantics ('only the exact code is used', Turkish/English siblings go under related_codes) and hints that terms look like '2023-2024', but never documents the optional 'term' parameter's format or what omitting it does. Partial compensation warrants the baseline 3.

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?

States a precise verb+resource+scope: letter grade counts for a course across the terms the archive holds (from 2023-2024 on). The 'archive' framing implicitly separates it from live-data siblings like obs_get_grade_distribution, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explains how to interpret the returned data but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as obs_get_grade_distribution or get_course_grades. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g., archive availability) guidance.

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