get_peer_review_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it retrieves 'actual comment text'. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or what the include options imply for response size. The output schema exists but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 succinct, starting with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a parameter list. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the parameter list could be formatted more readably.

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's read-only nature, 6 parameters (2 required), and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and param semantics. It does not mention prerequisites or filtering, but overall it is reasonably complete for a retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Course code or Canvas ID', 'Replace names with anonymous IDs'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter definitions.

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 'Retrieve' and the specific resource 'actual comment text for peer reviews on an assignment', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_peer_review_assignments or list_peer_reviews.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_peer_review_quality, generate_peer_review_report). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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