generate_peer_review_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds only that the report includes summary/analytics/recommendations. It doesn't disclose potential performance implications or output format (though output schema exists). No contradiction noted.

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 front-loaded with a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a list of parameters. It is efficient but the parameter list is somewhat lengthy; could be tighter.

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 report generation tool with 9 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers the core function and parameter semantics. It lacks prerequisites or performance hints, but is adequate for basic usage.

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 0%, but the description provides brief semantic details for each parameter (e.g., 'course_identifier: Course code or Canvas ID'). This adds meaning beyond schema titles, though descriptions are terse.

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 clearly states it generates a peer review completion report with summary, analytics, and follow-up recommendations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_peer_review_completion_analytics and get_peer_review_followup_list by packaging multiple components into one comprehensive report.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its numerous siblings (e.g., extract_peer_review_dataset, generate_peer_review_feedback_report). An agent has no explicit context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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