get_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses what is retrieved (answers, page mappings, history, document references), which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of permissions, pagination, or size limits, but adds real behavioral value over the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action first and the scope second. It is slightly dense with the four-item content list, but nothing is wasted.

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 and 0% schema description coverage, the description must do more work; listing the returned data helps, but it omits how the two identifiers interact and whether submission_id is optional for the archived-attempt case. Adequate but leaves an agent guessing on scope resolution.

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 must carry parameter meaning; it partially does by indicating an assignment-scoped read versus a specific archived attempt, hinting at the assignment_id/submission_id relationship. It does not clarify that assignment_id is always required or that submission_id narrows to an archived attempt, leaving a gap the schema does not fill.

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 (Read) and enumerates the resource content (submitted answers, page mappings, history, document references) for a clearly scoped entity (an assignment or archived attempt). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like get_assignment or get_feedback, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'for an assignment or specific archived attempt' implicitly signals the two usage modes keyed to assignment_id vs submission_id, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as get_feedback or get_assignment, so routing remains inferential.

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