get_feedback

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the return-behavior detail: applied rubric items by default, all visible items when applied_only=false, plus the warning not to treat unapplied items as deductions. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, though pagination and response shape are unaddressed.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the applied_only behavior, then the interpretive caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 exists, so the description must cover return semantics; it does so partially (applied vs all rubric items) but omits pagination behavior, the meaning of limit/offset, and the required assignment_id scope. Adequate but with clear gaps for a five-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden, and it only clarifies applied_only (default true vs false) and hints at question_id via 'selected questions'. The other three parameters (assignment_id, limit, offset) get no explanation, including pagination semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading visible comments and annotations for selected questions. That is clearly distinct from siblings like get_submission or read_document, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate further.

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?

It implicitly scopes usage to 'selected questions' (question_id) and explains the applied_only toggle, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as get_submission or search_coursework. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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