canvas_quiz_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope information beyond that: only the caller's own submission (not other students' or instructor views) and only classic quizzes, not New Quizzes. It does not describe what happens when no submission exists or how paging behaves.

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 front-loaded sentence with a semicolon clause that earns its place by ruling out attempt creation. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple read tool the behavioral and parameter sides are adequately covered by annotations and schema. However, with no output schema present, the description gives no hint of the returned submission shape (attempt, scores, workflow state), which is the main remaining gap.

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%, including the raw/page semantics and the 'from canvas_quizzes'/'from canvas_courses' provenance hints, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 plus resource: 'Read your own existing classic quiz submission.' The qualifiers 'your own' and 'classic' implicitly distinguish it from canvas_quiz_submission_questions and from New Quizzes tooling, 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?

'Existing' establishes the precondition that a submission must already exist, and 'never creates an attempt' gives a clear negative boundary. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for starting or inspecting quiz questions.

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