get_peer_review_completion_analytics

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. The description adds only output composition (student-level breakdown, summary stats) but no additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, default filtering behavior, or response limitations.

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 that uses every word effectively. It states the verb, resource, and key output characteristics with no redundancy or filler.

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, the description gives only a vague sense of the return shape ('student-level breakdown and summary stats') and does not clarify how the boolean parameters alter the output. However, the parameter schema is complete, and the tool is relatively simple, so the description is minimally viable.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics or relationships beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('peer review completion analytics') with an output qualifier ('student-level breakdown and summary stats'). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named 'generate_peer_review_report'.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many peer-review sibling tools present, the description does not state exclusions or direct the agent to a better tool for other analytics needs.

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