list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one piece of behavior beyond that — that submission state flags (submitted/graded/late/missing) are returned per item — but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether the list is scoped to the caller's enrollment.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact args block and a one-line return note. No filler, though the docstring formatting ('Args:') is a little mechanical.

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 shape needn't be re-explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. With all three parameters documented and the enum values supplied where the schema omits them, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 carries the burden and does so well: it enumerates the seven valid bucket values, which the schema itself leaves as an unconstrained string, and defines search_term as a partial name match. Only course_id is given a thin gloss ('Canvas course ID'). This is a real value-add over the raw 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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'List assignments in a course.' That is enough to separate it from get_assignment (single item) and from audit-style siblings like missing_work_audit, though those alternatives are never named. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The bucket filter list implicitly signals intended scenarios (e.g. 'ungraded'/'missing' work review), but the agent must infer that a per-assignment lookup belongs to get_assignment instead.

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