list_gradebook_history_days

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context about grouping by grader and assignment, which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or limits, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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, well-structured sentence that includes all essential information without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 list tool with one required input parameter and no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns (dates with grading activity grouped by grader and assignment). It does not detail date format or pagination, but these are often implicit. The annotations (openWorldHint) imply multiple results.

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% for the single parameter course_id, with a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists dates in gradebook history containing grading activity, grouped by grader and assignment. The specific verb 'List' and resource 'dates in a course gradebook history' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_gradebook_history_day (specific day details) and list_gradebook_history_submissions (submissions).

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 the tool is for getting a summary of activity dates but does not explicitly specify when to use it over siblings like get_gradebook_history_day or get_gradebook_history_feed. No alternative usage conditions or exclusions are provided.

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