get_assessment_responses

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

Discloses substantial behavior beyond the annotations: server-side auth injection (model never handles tokens), throttling to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap with retry on 429/5xx, 20-per-page pagination, ordering, and a complete error mapping (401/403/404/422). 'Creates, changes and deletes nothing' reinforces rather than contradicts the readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false 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?

Longer than average, but efficiently organized with bolded labels (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and a one-line summary up front. Every section carries operational information an agent needs to call the tool safely; the Returns section is the most verbose but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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, the description shoulders return-value disclosure and delivers the response shape ('HTTP <status> + LearnWorlds JSON body'), ordering, and pagination semantics, plus auth, throttling, and error handling. The only meaningful gap is that the exact JSON body structure is left unspecified, which an agent consuming the result would need.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying page + items_per_page into a pagination walk strategy ('walk them with page and size each page') and revealing a 20-per-page default the schema doesn't state. The users parameter is left to the schema, which already documents it fully.

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 the resource ('assessment responses') with a specific verb ('Get ... Retrieves') and adds distinctive behavioral detail: most recent submission first, paginated at 20 per page. It also anchors itself in the sibling space by explicitly labeling the related assessment tools and declaring itself the read-only lookup rather than the write path.

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?

'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting' gives explicit positive context, and 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool' gives an explicit exclusion. However, the named alternatives (review_submission_user_s_assessment_submission, get_form_responses) are listed without selection conditions, so an agent must still infer which assessment tool fits a given task.

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