get_gradebook_history_feed

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

The description adds that the feed is paginated and supports optional filters and sorting, which is beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). However, it does not disclose pagination details (e.g., page token, limit), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The annotations already cover safety, so the description provides moderate additional behavioral context but not comprehensive clarity.

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, concise sentence (20 words) that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word contributes meaning—'paginated', 'optionally filtered', 'optionally sorted'—without redundancy or fluff. It is perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: pagination, optional filters, and sort order. Given the high schema coverage for parameters and the annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool. Missing elements like return format are partially mitigated by context signals, so it is nearly complete.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including details on optional filters and sorting. The description merely summarizes these options ('optionally filtered by assignment or user and optionally sorted oldest-first') without adding new meaning or nuance beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('paginated gradebook history feed'), and the scope ('for a course'). It also specifies optional filters and sorting, making the tool's purpose highly specific and unambiguous. While it does not explicitly name siblings for differentiation, the combination of verb and resource is distinct enough to set it apart.

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 you need the paginated gradebook history feed, optionally filtered or sorted. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives such as 'list_gradebook_history_submissions' or 'get_gradebook_history_day', which might be more appropriate for specific granularity. No when-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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