get_my_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description earns no credit for the safe-read nature. The main addition, 'including attempts used,' adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what happens if no submission exists, whether the user must be enrolled, or any other behavior beyond the bare fact of fetching.

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, compact sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key differentiator ('including attempts used'). No word is wasted, and it is easy to scan and parse.

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 lookup with two well-described scalar parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is whether it should mention what to do when the user has no submission or what the output shape looks like, but those are minor for this tool.

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%: both assignment_id and course_identifier are documented. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies when schema fully covers parameters. It does not need to elaborate further for a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 ('Get') with the target resource ('your own submission for an assignment') and a key qualifier ('including attempts used'). This clearly identifies the scoped, per-user nature of the tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as 'get_my_submission_status' and 'list_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?

The phrase 'your own submission' explicitly conveys this is for the current user's own submission, not others' submissions or general assignment data. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list_submissions, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose between this and broader listing tools.

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