List My Submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' line is redundant rather than additive. What it does add is a hint at the returned fields (scores, grades, status), but it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or whether the limit truncates silently.

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 clauses with the operation and return payload front-loaded and the sibling pointer last. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 only two well-documented parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient; naming the returned fields partially compensates for the missing output schema. A note on how limit affects paging or ordering is the only real 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%: course_id is documented with a numeric-string example and a pointer to list_courses, and limit explains its speed tradeoff. The description adds no meaning 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 ('List all of your submissions in a course') plus the payload the agent gets back ('scores, grades and status'). It also names the sibling that serves the single-item case, so the tool is distinguishable 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_my_submission when full detail on one submission is needed, which is a clear use/alternative split. It doesn't address other plausible competitors in the large sibling set (get_submission_summary, list_missing_submissions, get_all_grades), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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