get_peer_review_followup_list

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds behavioral context like prioritization, optional contact info, and days-based urgency calculation. However, it does not describe output format or sort order beyond priority, which is partially covered by the output schema.

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 clear sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with the main 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 5 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers all necessary parameter semantics. It lacks explanation of how priority is calculated beyond the days_threshold parameter, but this is sufficient for a list-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?

The description explicates all 5 parameters beyond what the input schema provides (which has 0% description coverage). It specifies acceptable values for priority_filter (urgent, medium, low, all) and clarifies that course_identifier accepts both code and Canvas ID. Defaults are omitted but visible in schema.

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 it retrieves a prioritized list of students needing follow-up on peer review completion. It identifies the resource (students) and action (get list with prioritization), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'generate_peer_review_report' or 'get_peer_review_completion_analytics', which would earn 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'send_peer_review_followup_campaign' or 'list_peer_reviews'. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical use cases.

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