ghl_course_get_assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the required OAuth scope and the mandatory v3 version header, both of which affect whether a call succeeds.

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?

Front-loads the productId clarification and the tool's purpose, then auth and endpoint metadata. It repeats the same facts: v3 version is stated twice and the location token plus courses.readonly scope is restated three times, which is redundant but not enough to obscure the payload.

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?

Auth, scope, and endpoint are fully covered, but with no output schema the description should say something about what a retrieved assessment contains or its shape, and it does not. For a single-resource read tool this is an adequate but noticeable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description earns credit by disambiguating productId as "the course (product) id" — a mapping the schema's terse "Product id" does not make. assessmentId and locationId receive no additional meaning from the description.

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?

Uses a specific verb plus resource ("Get one assessment submission") and pins the exact endpoint GET /courses/products/{productId}/assessments/{assessmentId}, which distinguishes it from list/review siblings. The wording "assessment submission" is a slight mismatch with the endpoint, which fetches an assessment by id rather than a submission, introducing minor ambiguity an agent must resolve from the path.

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?

Gives clear operational conditions: requires a Sub-Account (location) token with the courses.readonly scope and the Version: v3 header. It does not name alternatives such as ghl_course_list_assessments or ghl_course_review_assessment, so an agent gets context but no explicit routing guidance between siblings.

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