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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by explaining the overall status remains 'grading' until every question is marked and that per-question marking_status, marks, level, and feedback are returned.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core read operation. The second sentence adds the polling instruction without unnecessary detail, and every element supports either selection or correct invocation.

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 a single required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the operation, output contents, and polling context without needing to duplicate the output schema.

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 100% for the single submission_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only implies the submission relationship via 'created via submission_mark' and does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond that baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reads grading state and per-question marks for a submission. It also distinguishes the tool from submission_mark by noting that submissions are created via that sibling and that this tool should be polled afterward.

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 says to poll after submission_mark and identifies the parent operation that creates the submission. It does not name an alternative such as results_get or markResult_get, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance but gives clear usage context.

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