My Submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping constraint 'user's own' and lists the specific data fields, but does not disclose behavior for missing submissions or authentication requirements. This is consistent with annotations.

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?

The description is a single 18-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then lists the return contents. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose and output domains, though it omits explicit usage guidance and edge-case behavior.

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% with both parameters described as 'Course id' and 'Assignment id'. The description does not add any parameter-specific details 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the user's own submission for an assignment', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_assignment or my_grades. It also enumerates the returned fields (state, score, grade, lateness, instructor comments, rubric assessment), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when the user needs their own submission details for a specific assignment, but it does not explicitly contrast with my_grades or get_assignment. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, though the 'user's own' scope gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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