Get my missing submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a minimal behavioral detail (due/overdue) but doesn't disclose how results are ordered, whether they include only published assignments, or any other execution behavior. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial context.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is efficiently front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it is so brief that it leaves out potentially valuable context, though it is not overlong.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core concept but lacks details about return format, pagination, or how results are scoped by default (e.g., all courses or only favorite ones). Given the simplicity, it is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement.

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 100% because the only parameter (courseIds) has a description in the schema ('Optionally limit to these course ids'). The tool description adds nothing about this parameter, so it doesn't exceed the baseline value provided by 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?

The description states a specific verb (get) and resource (missing submissions, defined as assignments not submitted and due/overdue). It is clear and distinguishes from siblings like canvas_get_todo, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The title and description are similar but not tautological since the description adds the due/overdue qualifier.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as canvas_get_todo or canvas_get_planner_items. An agent would have to infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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