list-assignment-submissions

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds that it fetches statuses and comments, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotation, but not particularly rich.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only list tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey its purpose and expected return content. However, it doesn't address the potential ambiguity with list-section-submissions, which would have made it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already has comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('submission status & comments') and scope ('every student... for an assignment'). It distinguishes from grading/comment-posting tools, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar sibling tool 'list-section-submissions'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-section-submissions. The description simply states what the tool does without providing any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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