list_feedbacks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them, reinforcing read-only scope. It adds genuine context by explicitly ruling out the response/submission behavior an agent might otherwise assume for a survey tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the one capability caveat that matters. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 an output schema present and the single parameter fully documented, the description only needs to set scope and limits, which it does. It could say slightly more about behavior across multiple course_ids, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter, course_ids, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no further semantics (formats, multi-course behavior, limits), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (Feedback/survey activities) plus the scope (one or more courses), so an agent grasps the action immediately. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_surveys, which uses near-identical vocabulary, so a bit of ambiguity remains.

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 clarifies a negative case — responding to surveys is not supported, this tool is read-only — which helps avoid mis-invocation. However, it gives no positive guidance on when to pick this over list_surveys or the other activity-listing siblings.

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