Get Rubric

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation with potentially open-world results. The description adds the detail that criteria are included, which is beyond a generic read. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, but for a simple get-by-ID with read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. No contradiction.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and adds the key detail about criteria. No filler words, no repetition. It is perfectly sized for a get-by-ID tool.

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?

The description is complete for a simple get-by-ID operation given that the schema covers both parameters and the annotations declare read-only and open-world hints. There is no output schema, so the description could have elaborated on the return structure (e.g., whether criteria are nested or in a specific format), but the mention of criteria gives sufficient context for an agent to infer the response includes rubric details. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical here.

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 both course_id and rubric_id are already described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't specify that course_id is needed for context, or that rubric_id is the primary key). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 details') and the resource ('a single rubric by ID'), and explicitly mentions the included criteria. It distinguishes this from list_rubrics and get_rubric_assessment, which are siblings that handle listing and assessments respectively. The description is specific enough for an agent to know exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 context: you need a specific rubric ID and course ID, and it returns a single rubric. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over list_rubrics (e.g., when you need details/criteria of one rubric vs. listing all), but the presence of sibling names like list_rubrics and get_rubric_assessment implicitly conveys the distinction. A clearer 'use when you have a rubric ID' would push to 5, but the implicit guidance is adequate.

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