ghl_course_list_assessments

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real operational context: required Location/sub-account token, courses.readonly scope, and the mandatory Version: v3 header. It does not describe response shape or pagination limits, but adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 key clarification (productId = course id) is front-loaded, but the auth requirement is restated three times ('Location token with courses.readonly', 'Sub-Account (location) token', 'OAuth scopes: courses.readonly'), and the endpoint/source metadata is verbose filler for an agent.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a fully documented 5-parameter schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers auth, version header and pagination adequately. Minor gap: no indication of result size or default page size behavior on return.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds non-obvious meaning by explaining that productId is the course (product) id and that pageSize is the pagination lever — both reduce misuse risk. status and pageNumber semantics are left to the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List assessment submissions for a course') and clarifies that the productId path parameter is really the course id, which distinguishes it from ghl_course_get_assessment (single assessment) and ghl_course_review_assessment. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (retrieve submissions for a course with courses.readonly scope), and there is practical guidance to pass pageSize to page through full result sets. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the sibling assessment tools (get_assessment, review_assessment).

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