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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful note that the tool reads from the 'workspace ledger' and says 'Cheap,' but omits pagination behavior beyond the cursor name and doesn't disclose rate limits or the practical cost of wide status filters.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then filters, then a one-word cost note. No filler, though the dangling 'Cheap.' is terse to the point of being under-explained relative to its placement.

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?

The tool is a read-only filtered list with an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It does well to enumerate the columns returned and the filter dimensions. What's missing is any note on pagination limits (limit max 50) or how the status filter interacts with the returned set, which an agent calling this against a large ledger would benefit from.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented (cursor, status enum, classId source, subjectSlug examples). The description only paraphrases 'Optional filters cover class, subject and status' and the meaning of the active status, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the 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 (lists) and resource (coursework = assignments and grading sessions) and enumerates the fields returned (status, class, due date, turn-in counts, review counts, class average). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the nearby list_grading_sessions, list_submissions_to_review, or list_classes siblings, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to identify the tool.

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?

Mentions that the active status filter selects currently-open work and that filters cover class, subject, and status, which implies when to use each filter. It never states when to prefer this tool over the overlapping siblings (list_grading_sessions, list_submissions_to_review) or when filtering by status is preferable to the plain call.

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