get_my_peer_reviews_todo

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers the safety profile (safe read operation). The description adds one behavioral nuance: the discovery scan only queries assignments where the peer_reviews flag came back true, and an assignment with a missing/stale flag would be silently skipped. This is useful beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose what 'needs to complete' means (overdue vs. pending), pagination, or return format, but annotations exist and the tool is simple.

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 one sentence plus a secondary sentence embedded in the parameter description. No waste; front-loaded. The second sentence is entirely within the parameter schema (part of the tool definition), so the core description is minimal and to the point.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read-only list with 0 required parameters, good annotations (readOnlyHint), full schema coverage, and no output schema needed, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, scope, and a critical behavioral caveat (silent skip). No gaps that would prevent correct agent use. Fewer than 3 paragraphs: the description is complete enough.

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 100% (both parameters are described in the input schema). The assignment_identifier description adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name by explaining context: it bypasses the discovery scan and warns about the peer_reviews flag limitation. course_identifier's meaning is clear from its schema description. The description adds nothing beyond schema, but schema fully covers it, so baseline 3 applies. The extra context about the flag issue justifies a small bump.

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 the verb and resource: 'Get peer reviews YOU need to complete.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_peer_reviews and get_peer_review_assignments by emphasizing the personal 'YOU need to complete' scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated in the description text itself.

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 is short and doesn't provide specific when-to-use guidance or exclusions beyond 'you need to complete.' The parameter descriptions on assignment_identifier provide implementation detail (bypassing the discovery scan) but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_peer_review_followup_list or list_peer_reviews. There's no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references in the tool description.

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