Class assignments

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation, so the lower bar applies. The description adds useful return context (due dates, status, Classroom links, points), but it does not cover pagination, ordering, permissions, or the full response shape.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first front-loads what the tool returns, and the second gives the primary usage scenario without unnecessary repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states scope, return fields, and a typical user request. Minor gaps remain around sibling differentiation and response ordering/pagination.

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?

The single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including how to obtain it via get_my_courses. The description reinforces that the tool operates on one class but adds no syntax or formatting details beyond 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 clearly specifies the resource (assignments for one class) and the returned fields (due dates, status, links, points). It distinguishes the scope as single-class rather than all-class, though it does not explicitly name overlapping siblings such as get_todo 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?

It provides a concrete use case: when the user asks what is due in a particular class or wants every assignment and its points for one class. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_todo, get_upcoming_due_dates, or get_missing_assignments instead, but the single-class framing gives clear context.

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