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 description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add value by specifying the exact output content (graders and assignment IDs), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any pagination, scope limits, or date handling edge cases. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate—it provides some behavioral detail but not rich context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently conveys what the tool returns. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states what is returned (graders and assignment IDs) and the scope (specific course date). It doesn't explain return value structure or formatting, but that's not required here. The main missing piece is usage context relative to siblings, which is covered in the usage dimension.

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%—both 'date' (with format) and 'course_id' are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond restating that the date is for gradebook history. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, baseline 3 is correct; no extra compensation needed.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('gradebook history day'), and further specifies it returns 'graders and assignment IDs that had gradebook activity' for a course date. This is clear and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_gradebook_history_days or get_gradebook_history_feed, so it doesn't fully differentiate, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_gradebook_history_days (to list available days) or get_gradebook_history_feed (to get a feed of changes). The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between these similar read-only tools. This is a notable gap.

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