submission_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing caching freshness via freshness.cached and noting that grade/feedback is only present 'when released' — information an agent cannot get from the annotations. It omits rate limits or error behavior.

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, no redundancy, and the core purpose plus the status enumeration are front-loaded before the caching caveat. 'straight from Moodle' is mild flavor text but also signals the authoritative source, so it mostly 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 an output schema present, return-value structure need not be described, and the description still covers the meaningful return states and the freshness caveat. For a single-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete, though edge cases (assignment not found, missing assignment) are unaddressed.

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, assignment_id, whose schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it only implies scope via 'for one assignment.' That is enough for a self-describing integer ID but adds no format, source, or constraint detail.

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 names a specific resource (submission status for one assignment) and enumerates the exact possible return states (not_started, draft, submitted, graded, overdue), which lets an agent distinguish it from aggregate siblings like current_grades or overdue_assignments. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only usage instruction is 'Check freshness.cached before calling the value real-time,' which is a data-staleness caveat rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this tool is preferable to assignment_details, current_grades, or overdue_assignments, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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