get_submission

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 it's a read operation. Description adds value by mentioning default includes and available options, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, error handling, pagination). No contradiction with 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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main purpose, then provides additional include details. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

No output schema, so description does not explain return structure. However, tool is straightforward (get a single submission) and include options cover common needs. Could be more complete by mentioning error cases or field structure, but adequate for typical use.

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%: all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context about default include behavior and lists possible values, reinforcing schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds marginal 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?

Description clearly states 'Get a single submission for a specific user on an assignment.' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings such as list_submissions (which retrieves multiple) and get_submission_peer_reviews (different focus).

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?

Description specifies default include behavior and how to add more fields, giving agents context for usage. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the tool name and sibling list provide implicit differentiation. Could be improved by mentioning when to use this versus list_submissions.

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