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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive/closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance—that includeText pulls the actual response text—but says nothing about provenance or size implications of that flag.

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 tight sentences, front-loading what is returned and then handling the one ambiguous flag. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, so return shape need not be described. The includeText behavior is clarified; the only minor gap is no indication of how this relates to the other retrieval siblings.

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 67%; sessionId and essayHandle are documented in the schema, while includeText is an undescribed boolean. The description compensates for exactly that gap by explaining when to set includeText, adding meaning the schema lacks.

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 (get) and resource (essay feedback) and enumerates the returned content: score, part-by-part feedback, teacher changes, approval status. It is clear what this returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_grading_results or get_submission.

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 only conditional guidance is parameter-level: 'Set includeText only when the teacher wants to read the response itself.' There is no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives framing against siblings such as get_submission or get_frq, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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