Get Submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the default include behavior (submission_comments) and listing the additional include options (rubric_assessment, submission_history, visibility, course, user, read_status). This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence establishes the core purpose; the second covers the default and the include options. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool with three required IDs and one optional include array, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the default and the optional extras. No output schema is provided, but the return type (a submission object) is inferable from the tool's name and purpose. Minor gap: it does not describe the response structure, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default value for the 'include' parameter (['submission_comments']) and enumerates what can be added, which is not present in the schema. This provides meaningful additional semantic information about how to use the parameter.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single submission'), and the scope ('for a specific user on an assignment'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_submissions. The purpose is unambiguous and the tool's role is immediately apparent.

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 when to use this tool (when a single submission is needed) by saying 'Get a single submission', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_submissions or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The default include behavior is mentioned, which offers some usage context, but no explicit routing between siblings is provided.

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