Calculate Target GPA

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

Annotations already establish the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description's only added context is the no-transcript framing, which is mildly useful but does not disclose any behavior the annotations don't already imply for a pure calculation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and scope are stated immediately, and nothing is wasted.

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 simple 4-input calculator with a complete annotation set and an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers what the tool computes. It is only slightly thin on distinguishing itself from the sibling GPA tools.

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 should compensate, and it does not explain any of the four parameters. The parameter names (current_gpa, current_credits, target_gpa, future_credits) are largely self-describing, keeping this at the minimum-viable baseline rather than lower.

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?

Specific verb (Estimate) and resource (future average required to reach a target cumulative GPA) make the tool's function unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling obs_calculate_gpa or estimate_relative_grade, which the agent may confuse it with.

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 phrase 'without reading a transcript' implies when to prefer this tool (planning/forward-looking, no transcript access needed) versus transcript-dependent siblings, but the guidance is only implied. No explicit when/when-not or named alternative is given.

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