get_submission_peer_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'list' aligns. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, empty results behavior) beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with good schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention return format or pagination, but is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it achieves the baseline of 3.

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 'List peer reviews assigned to a specific submission' clearly states the action (list), resource (peer reviews), and scope (specific submission), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_peer_reviews' which likely operate at a broader level.

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 when needing peer reviews for a particular submission but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_peer_reviews' or 'get_submission', nor any when-not scenarios.

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