get_deadlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not state that this is a read-only, non-destructive call, nor what credentials/account linkage are required for Canvas and Gradescope. It discloses the two sources and the default lookahead window, but says nothing about what happens when an account isn't linked to one of the platforms or whether results are merged/deduplicated.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no redundant wording. The Python-style Args formatting is slightly out of place for a JSON tool definition but costs nothing in clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and only two optional parameters are involved. Still missing for a cross-platform aggregation tool: what happens with unlinked accounts, whether both sources are always queried, and any time-zone assumption on the deadline window.

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 partially: days_ahead is defined as the lookahead window with the same default of 14, and account is described as the school account with a default to the active one. It still doesn't say what form account takes (name, ID, or a value from list_school_accounts), leaving ambiguity for a 0%-coverage 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 upcoming deadlines") plus the two data sources (Canvas and Gradescope), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_courses or add_to_reminders. It does not explicitly say how it relates to list_courses (which presumably lists assignments), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus list_courses, list_course_files, or add_to_reminders. The only contextual hint is that account defaults to the active account, implicitly pointing at switch_school_account, but no explicit when/when-not conditions are given.

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