Get teacher feedback for a student

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds value by disclosing the returned content, including per-item read status and authorship. It omits pagination, volume, and any rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a top score.

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 zero padding: the first defines the output contents, the second delivers the actionable prerequisite. Front-loaded and every clause 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?

With no output schema present, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, which is exactly what compensates for its absence. Remaining gaps are minor (pagination or result-size expectations for a list call).

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% and the single parameter's schema text already states it is the 'Student artist_id (from artsonia_list_students)' and enforces a numeric pattern. The description only restates the same provenance, so by the high-coverage baseline this sits at 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the teacher feedback left on a student's artwork') and even enumerates the returned fields (message, poster, timestamp, artwork, read status). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like artsonia_mark_feedback_read, which mutates read state rather than listing.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required identifier comes from ('Pass the artist_id from artsonia_list_students'), establishing a prerequisite call ordering. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer this over related list tools such as artsonia_list_comments or artsonia_get_activity.

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