To-do list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not carry the safety burden. It does add useful context beyond them: the result includes an openable Classroom link per item, and an empty filter means all active classes rather than none. Nothing about pagination, result caps, or permissions is disclosed, so the description is helpful but not rich.

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: what is returned first, then how to scope it, then example user phrasings. That front-loading is good. The scoping sentence duplicates the schema description, so it earns slightly less than a full 5, but nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, default behavior, and return payload (links), which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies how it relates to get_missing_assignments or get_assignments, but that is a minor omission for a tool this simple.

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%: course_ids is documented as 'Classroom course IDs to check. Leave empty for all active classes', and the item description points to get_my_courses. The description's 'Pass course_ids to limit it, or leave empty for all active classes' restates that rather than adding format guidance or semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb-plus-resource ('everything assigned that the student has not turned in yet') and mentions the returned link, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not distinguish this tool from the close sibling get_missing_assignments, whose scope ('not turned in') sounds nearly identical, so the tool's purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives concrete triggers by quoting the user questions it answers ('What do I still have to do?', 'What's left to turn in across all my classes?') and explains when to pass course_ids and when to leave it empty. It names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer on its own when get_missing_assignments or get_upcoming_due_dates would be better.

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