get_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description's added value is enumerating the payload (submission status, dates, teacher attachments), which is meaningful behavioral context given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting the open-world/remote-fetch implication or any error behavior for invalid IDs.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource up front and the returned fields trailing as enumeration; no filler. Dense but readable, and nothing needs to be cut.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by listing the returned fields. Missing only guidance on when to prefer it over list_assignments, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single parameter is well documented in the schema itself ('ID numérico ... o URL completa de la tarea'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does all the work and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Obtiene el detalle completo ... de una tarea') and enumerates exactly what detail is returned: consigna, estado de entrega, fechas y adjuntos. The word 'detalle' combined with the enumerated fields implicitly separates this single-item fetch from list_assignments, though the sibling is never named outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the single-assignment detail fetch as opposed to list_assignments or submit_assignment, but there is no explicit 'use this when' clause, no prerequisite (e.g. needing an ID obtained from list_assignments), and no exclusion against alternatives.

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