Get a course's late policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool may return a note if instructor-restricted, and describes the content structure (deduction % per interval). This enriches the agent's understanding of potential outcomes without contradicting 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 description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes only relevant details. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, and the fallback note is placed after the core functionality, maintaining a logical structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of what is returned (penalty tiers with deduction percentages) and a key edge case (instructor restriction). It does not detail the exact JSON structure, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the information is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to handle a restricted scenario.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, as the courseId is described with type and pattern. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, source, or constraints) beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a course's late-submission penalty tiers with specific detail ('deduction % per interval'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_get_grading_standards or canvas_get_syllabus, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives. It does mention a conditional fallback ('if the course restricts this to instructors, returns a note so you can fall back to the syllabus'), which offers some guidance on handling restricted access, but it lacks explicit exclusions or selection criteria.

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