Get Peer Review Assignments

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose the shape of the result (reviewer-to-reviewee mapping plus completion status), which is valuable, but says nothing about permissions, whether reviewer identities may be hidden via anonymity settings, or result size limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the returned content is stated up front with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the guidance gaps noted above rather than being optimally structured for selection.

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 four-parameter read-only lookup with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly. However, for a peer-review audience where anonymity is a real concern, the absence of any note on identity handling or result volume leaves a meaningful gap.

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%, so both required identifiers and the two boolean toggles (include_names, include_submission_details) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as the default that names are included, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get peer review assignment mapping') and clarifies the payload as 'who reviews whom with completion status', so its purpose is unambiguous. It never contrasts itself with close siblings such as list_peer_reviews, assign_peer_review, or get_peer_review_completion_analytics, which is the one missing element for a 5.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_peer_reviews (raw review list), assign_peer_review (mutation), or the completion-analytics siblings. The required course/assignment pair implies an instructor-scoped lookup, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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