Upcoming due dates

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 genuinely new behavioral facts: results are scoped to not-turned-in work, ordered soonest-first, and both parameters can be omitted with a defined default (all active classes, all future dates). Nothing contradicts the annotations. It stops short of noting any result cap or volume expectation for a cross-class query.

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 short sentences: what it returns and in what order, then how to narrow, then when to reach for it. The most useful information is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant padding.

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?

With only two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema to compensate for, the description covers what the tool returns, its ordering, its defaults, and its trigger. It is slightly thin on how the result set is bounded for 'all classes', but that is a minor omission for a simple read.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'leave empty' defaults and the pointer to get_my_courses. The description restates the same narrow-or-omit behavior rather than adding syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., how the two filters combine), so 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 resource and filter: work that is due soon and not turned in, returned soonest first. That is concrete enough to predict the payload, but it never names or contrasts the closest siblings (get_todo, get_missing_assignments, get_assignments), so an agent must infer which of these four overlapping list tools to pick.

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 a concrete when-to-use trigger in the form of user questions ('What's due this week across all my classes?', 'What's coming up?'), which is more actionable than generic 'use for due dates' phrasing. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit routing away from get_missing_assignments/get_todo, which is the main gap given how similar the siblings are.

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