Get Gradebook History Day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail: it returns graders and assignment IDs for a given date. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, or behavior when no activity exists, providing only minimal additional context 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?

The description is a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and output, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with only two schema-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and return content. However, it does not clarify the structure of 'graders' (e.g., IDs vs names) or how this tool relates to the sibling gradebook history tools, so there is a minor completeness 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% for both required parameters (course_id and date), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond implying that the date is used for the day-specific filter.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource clearly: 'graders and assignment IDs that had gradebook activity' scoped to 'a specific course date.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gradebook_history_days and list_gradebook_history_submissions, which operate at a different granularity or content type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related gradebook history siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit usage signal is 'specific course date,' which suggests day-level lookup but leaves the agent to infer the full context.

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