Assignment details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the returned payload (description body, attachments, due date, points, personal status), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior, permissions, or what happens with an invalid ID.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the payload, then the invocation and usage triggers. No sentence is filler; the usage examples do real routing work.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: what is returned, how to call it, and when it applies. Nothing material is missing.

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 is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including pointers to get_my_courses and get_assignments for lookup. The description only restates 'Pass the course ID and the assignment ID', adding no format or type guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Everything about one assignment') and enumerates exactly what is returned: description text, attachments/links, due date, points, and submission status. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like get_assignments or get_upcoming_due_dates.

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?

Gives concrete triggering user questions ('What does this assignment ask for?', 'What do I need to turn in?') and scopes usage to 'one specific assignment', which implicitly separates it from the list tools. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly or states a when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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