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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds some behavior beyond that: it discloses result-visibility status and the meaning/condition for includeText. Still, no mention of pagination, auth/prerequisite, or side effects, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 sentences with no filler, and the includeText caveat is placed last where it logically belongs. The enumerated return contents partly duplicate the output schema, slightly reducing the density of value per sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, the return details needn't be explained, and the description still pairs the parameter gap it uniquely fills (includeText). An agent has enough to call it correctly; only cross-tool routing guidance is thin.

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%; the two id parameters are documented in the schema as coming from list_coursework/list_submissions_to_review. The description compensates for the undocumented includeText flag by explaining its semantics, adding real value beyond the bare schema.

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+resource ('One student's submission') and enumerates what it returns (section scores, FRQ rubric breakdown, overrides, feedback, visibility). The singular framing clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_submissions_to_review, though no sibling is named 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?

The description gives one conditional usage note for includeText ('requires that the teacher wants to read the student's responses'), which implies when to set it. However it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_grading_results, so usage is only partially specified.

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