get_peer_review_comments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys that this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying that it returns comment text for peer reviews, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or effects of the boolean options beyond what the schema shows.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core function.

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?

With no output schema, six parameters, and many sibling peer-review tools, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how the include/anonymize options affect output, or how this tool differs from similar peer-review tools.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the assignment scope already evident from the schema, placing it at the baseline.

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 ('Retrieve') and identifies the exact resource ('actual comment text for peer reviews on an assignment'). It clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with closely related peer-review tools like 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_peer_reviews, get_peer_review_assignments, or generate_peer_review_report. The description only states what it does, with no exclusions or contextual recommendations.

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