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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: newest-first ordering, the returned counts (essay, scored, approved), and a cost hint ('Cheap').

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 terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; scope and ordering come first and the resume guidance follows. 'Cheap' is clipped but earns its place as a cost signal.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The definition is nearly complete for a list tool, with the only real gap being the undocumented limit parameter.

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 0% and the description never mentions the required 'limit' parameter or its bounds. With a documented parameter and no compensating explanation in either place, the agent gets no added meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 ('grading sessions') and adds scope that distinguishes it from siblings: 'for work done outside Fiveable (stacks of essays graded in the workspace).' An agent can tell this apart from create_grading_session or start_grading without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('Use to resume a stack') that signals the intended workflow. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g., list_submissions_to_review) or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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