get_quiz_submission_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns with these. Beyond annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: events are in chronological order, scoped to a single submission, access permissions (instructors and submitting student only), and a caution about integrity conclusions. No contradiction detected.

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 concise (6 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then outlines event types, usage guidance, scope, and a caution. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 retrieval tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, event types, scope, permissions, and limitations. It is missing information on pagination or response format, but given the tool's simplicity and the context provided, it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'chronological order' and 'single submission' which are behavioral rather than parameter-specific. Thus, minimal added value.

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 tool retrieves event logs for Classic Quiz submissions, listing specific event types and distinguishing from New Quizzes. It provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('event log'), and scoping ('for a Classic Quiz submission'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_quiz_submissions or get_quiz_question_responses.

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 explicitly states when to use ('to understand the timeline of a student's attempt') and when not to use ('Classic Quizzes only — New Quizzes does not expose event logs'). It also provides a caution against using event logs as the sole basis for academic-integrity conclusions, offering clear usage guidance.

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