Get grade detail with feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate read-only behavior. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the full scope of the response, including every attempt, timestamps, statuses, submitted text, and instructor feedback. The only slight gap is not explaining what happens when includeAttempts=false, though the schema covers that parameter.

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 short sentences with no filler. The most important scoping statement ('Everything about one gradebook item') is front-loaded, followed by a concrete enumeration and a final routing clue. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only detail retrieval tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned contents: score, rubric/points, due date, attempts, submitted text, and feedback. It also handles the key distinction from the grade list. There is no missing critical context an agent needs to decide to call it.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in structured form. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond saying the tool returns detailed grade information; it reinforces the purpose but does not clarify parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('grade detail') and enumerates exactly what is returned: score, rubric/points, due date, attempts with timestamps and status, submitted text, and feedback. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool bb_list_grades by noting that feedback lives here and not in the grade list.

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?

'This is where feedback lives. The grade list does not carry it' explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over the obvious alternative, bb_list_grades. It clearly signals that feedback/detail retrieval requires this tool rather than the summary list, giving both positive and negative routing guidance.

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