moodle_get_submission

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the payload shape, that online text is delivered as plain text, and that file entries carry a url intended for moodle_download_file — useful chaining information beyond the 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists return fields in a scannable order. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly. The only gap is the not-found case — it does not say whether a missing submission yields an error or an empty result.

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%, and the schema already explains both userId (from moodle_list_submissions) and assignmentId (the id field, not the cmid). The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 names the exact resource (one participant's full submission) and enumerates its contents: status/attempt number, time, online text, files, grade and feedback. The singular 'one participant' implicitly separates it from the sibling moodle_list_submissions, but it never states that distinction or uses an explicit retrieval verb.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the drill-down after moodle_list_submissions and that moodle_download_file is the follow-up for the file URLs; neither is stated as a usage rule.

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