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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: only released scores are included, teacher rosters and answer keys are not exposed, and completing work is not possible through this tool. This clarifies limits beyond the structured 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 description is three sentences with no filler: purpose, included data, exclusions, and a limitation are all stated efficiently. The main behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, and the description supplies necessary scope and caveats. The only notable gap is the absence of any explanation for cursor/subjectSlug filtering behavior, which an agent may need when calling the tool with more than the default simple invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the parameters (limit, cursor, subjectSlug). While limit and subjectSlug are somewhat self-explanatory from their names and constraints, the cursor's role in pagination is left entirely implicit. The description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter explanations.

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 ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource: assignments delivered to the connected student's enrolled classes, signed-in submissions, and claimed guest work. It also states what data is included and explicitly excludes teacher rosters and answer keys, making it easy to distinguish from other 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 clear context about what the tool returns and for whom, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead', but the scope is well-defined and the exclusions help disambiguate it from related functionality.

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