Course assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a 25-item result cap and the exact set of possible submission statuses, neither of which appears in the schema. It doesn't explain what happens when the cap is hit or whether results are ordered by due date.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the limit/status detail follows efficiently. The trailing example question is somewhat redundant with the opening question framing, which is the only wasted space.

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 read-only, single-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough: scope, cap, and status vocabulary. The only meaningful omission is whether a course with more than 25 assignments is truncated silently.

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 single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to get_my_courses. The description restates that pointer but adds no format or edge-case detail, 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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource — 'Lists up to 25 assignments for one course with due dates and submission status' — and enumerates the status values. It implies the course-scoped niche versus sibling tools like get_missing_work or get_upcoming_due_dates but never names them explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 frames the usage as a concrete question ('what do I still need to submit in this course?') and gives an example invocation, plus tells the caller to source course_id from get_my_courses. It stops short of stating when to prefer a sibling such as get_missing_work or get_todo, which would have earned the top score.

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