get_peer_review_completion_analytics

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with read-only behavior. The description adds some behavioral context through the parameter descriptions (e.g., grouping options) but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, permissions needed, or output format details beyond what annotations already cover.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose in a single sentence followed by parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the key aspects: purpose and parameters. However, it could mention the scope of analytics (e.g., whether it includes all students or only those with reviews) or any constraints like date ranges. Still, it is largely complete for its intended use.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing brief explanations for each parameter in the Args section, such as 'Course code or Canvas ID' for course_identifier and 'Include per-student breakdown' for include_student_details. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 purpose: 'Get peer review completion analytics with student-level breakdown and summary stats.' It specifies the resource (peer review completion analytics) and the action (get). While it distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_peer_review_quality' or 'generate_peer_review_report' by focusing on completion stats, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar analytics tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when-not-to-use or specific contexts that warrant this tool over other peer review related tools listed as siblings.

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