list_gradebook_history_submissions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (accepts extra params). The description adds 'versioned' but lacks detail on output format, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations are present, the description is adequate but leaves ambiguity about what 'versioned submission history' entails. It does not explain the return structure, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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?

All four parameters are required and fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so baseline 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 action (List), the resource (versioned submission history), and the precise filters (one grader, one assignment, specific date). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_gradebook_history_days and list_gradebook_history_feed.

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 for a specific grader, assignment, and date, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_gradebook_history_days or list_submissions. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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