List My Peer Reviews

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it checks both the assignment endpoint and Planner feed because either alone can miss items, and it routes follow-up submission to submit_peer_review.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The extra "Read-only" sentence is slightly redundant with annotations but still brief and useful, and every sentence contributes.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention return shape or pagination, but no output schema exists and the essential calling context is present.

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%, so the optional course_id is already documented. The description reinforces "in one course or all active courses" but adds no format or behavior details 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 and resource ("List peer reviews") and narrows scope to reviews "assigned to you that you still need to complete," distinguishing it from submit_peer_review. It also clarifies the one-course/all-active-courses scope.

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?

Clearly says to use this for pending peer reviews and routes submission to submit_peer_review. It does not explicitly name alternatives for viewing completed reviews or details, but the pending-only scope is clear.

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