canvas_get_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags FERPA/privacy sensitivity for a named student's work, discloses that attachments are listed but not inlined, and explains the max_chars payload bound. Read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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?

Purpose and FERPA caveat are front-loaded, and the Args block is scannable. Every line contributes, though the prose plus arg list is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a four-parameter read tool.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained; the description covers purpose, privacy constraints, attachment behavior, the sibling alternative, and all parameters. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four params are documented with types and meaning (numeric ids, user_id accepting 'self', course_id defaulting to CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID, max_chars with 0 = server default). This meaning is entirely absent from 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one student's submission') and enumerates exactly what is returned (body text, attachments, comments). It is clearly distinguishable from canvas_list_submissions (plural, list-level) and canvas_download_submissions (which it explicitly routes file fetching to).

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool for a key case: 'attachment contents are not inlined, only listed; use canvas_download_submissions to fetch the files themselves.' This is clear routing guidance, though it doesn't contrast against canvas_list_submissions for the broader-list use case.

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