Get My Rubric Assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real value: the empty-result condition ('Returns no assessment if the instructor did not grade with a rubric'), which prevents an agent from treating an empty response as an error. It does not discuss permissions or freshness, so not a 5.

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 with no filler; the payload description comes first, then the empty-result caveat, then the sibling disambiguation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so concretely, including the degenerate empty case. Minor gap: it doesn't state whether the per-criterion data is nested/aligned to rubric definitions, which would help consumption.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions including where to source the IDs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get how the rubric was applied to your submission') with the exact return contents enumerated (points and comment per criterion, plus score). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_rubric_assessment by naming what that tool adds, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Clearly scopes usage to the caller's own submission and names the alternative (get_rubric_assessment) with its delta ('same data plus the compact rubric_assessment form'). It stops short of saying which one to prefer in a given situation, leaving the choice implicit.

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