Get Peer Review Assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the 'Read-only' sentence is partly redundant, but the description adds real information about result content (reviewer-to-reviewee pairing plus completion state). It says nothing about scope size, pagination, or what happens if peer reviews aren't enabled for the assignment — the openWorldHint goes unexplained.

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 what the tool returns, then the safety note, then the routing hint. No filler and nothing to trim.

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, no-output-schema read tool, the definition covers purpose, safety profile, and result shape adequately. A note on what an empty result means (no peer review configured) would close the last 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 coverage is 100% and both required parameters already document their types and how to obtain the IDs from list_courses/list_assignments. The description only implies the assignment scoping and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 verb (get) and resource (peer reviews on one assignment) and spells out the payload: who reviews whom and per-review completion status. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_my_peer_reviews, so an agent can choose 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?

Gives a positive use context (reviews configured on a given assignment) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('for just the reviews you still owe'). Routing between the two peer-review siblings is unambiguous.

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