Get Submission History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still contributes real value by disclosing result ordering (oldest to newest) and the returned fields (scores, timestamps). The separate 'Read-only' sentence largely repeats the annotation, keeping it from 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, tightly front-loaded with the purpose and ordering, followed by the read-only note and the disambiguation. No filler or redundancy that isn't earning 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?

Only two required parameters, both documented, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description also summarizes what comes back (attempts with scores and timestamps), which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps like pagination or missing-attempt behavior keep it from a 5.

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 course_id and assignment_id carry descriptions with sourcing hints (list_courses, list_assignments). The description only implies 'one assignment' scoping and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Get every past attempt of your submission'), scopes it to 'one assignment', and specifies both ordering ('oldest to newest') and payload ('scores and timestamps'). It also names a sibling (get_my_submission) as the contrasting behavior, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for full attempt history, use get_my_submission for only the latest attempt. That gives clear when-to-use and a named alternative. It doesn't address other near-neighbors like list_my_submissions, so it stops short of full coverage.

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