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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces read-only behavior and rules out submission/assessment, which is useful disambiguation, but adds no detail on pagination, result scope, or cross-course aggregation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is a caveat that partly overlaps with readOnlyHint=true, but it earns its place by ruling out a plausible misuse.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and a one-parameter read-only listing tool needs little more. What is missing is any hint about behavior across multiple course ids (merged results vs. per-course grouping), a small gap for a single-call multi-course tool.

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% for the single course_ids parameter, and the description merely restates 'one or more courses' without adding format or constraint details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('Workshop (peer assessment) activities') with the parenthetical clarifying the Moodle module type, plus scope ('across one or more courses'). It does not name a sibling, but the read-only coverage caveat helps separate it from action-oriented tools; it stops short of 5 because nothing distinguishes it from the surrounding list_* family explicitly.

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?

It provides an explicit exclusion ('Submitting or assessing work is not supported by this server'), which tells the agent when not to rely on this server. However, it names no alternative tool or precondition, so the agent must infer that other servers handle submissions.

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