get_my_submission_feedback

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

The description adds behaviors beyond annotations: courses that error are skipped and reported, sorting by most-recent-feedback-first, and best-effort role identification. No contradictions with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then key details about scanning and error handling. Clear and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (submissions with feedback), sorting, role handling, and error reporting. Covers all necessary context.

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%, but the description adds context: omitting course_id scans all active courses, and error behavior for failing courses. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it lists the student's own submissions with feedback comments from instructors or peer reviewers, excluding self-comments. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_my_submissions or get_submission.

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 advises when to use (to get feedback-only submissions) and explains omitting course_id scans all courses. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context makes it clear that this is the dedicated feedback tool.

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