Submission status

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 adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned data points (turn-in state, timestamp, lateness, grade, teacher comment), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits what happens when no submission exists, a modest gap.

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?

The leading question orients the reader immediately, followed by scope, parameters, and triggers in a logical order. The phrase 'Did my teacher get my work?' appears twice (opening and usage example), which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the shape of the result, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. It could be more complete by noting behavior when the assignment has no submission record.

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 100% and both parameters already point at the discovery tools (get_my_courses, get_assignments). The description's 'Pass the course ID and the assignment ID' merely restates the required inputs without adding format or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope — 'For one assignment, shows whether it is turned in, when it was turned in, whether it was late, the grade... and the comment' — which is exactly what the tool returns. The single-assignment scope implicitly separates it from list-style siblings such as get_missing_assignments and get_todo, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings: 'Use this when the user asks "Did my teacher get my work?" or "Was my assignment marked late?"' That is clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives (e.g., get_missing_assignments for a whole-course view) or state when not to use it, which keeps it 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.