Get Assignments Summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it only counts assignments teachers posted on Lea, and an empty summary does not mean the student is caught up. It also indicates the return contains counts and pending titles. It doesn't detail output formatting or pagination, but for a summary read this is strong added context.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then the key caveat, then the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 summary with one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety, the description supplies everything needed: scope, caveat about empty results, and alternative tool guidance. 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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the pattern and format fully documented. The description only says 'for a term' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 specifies the exact resource (per-course assignment counts for a term) plus the extra content (titles Lea still lists as to hand in), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get-course-assignments. An agent can identify the tool's output without opening the schema.

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 names the sibling get-course-assignments and the condition that selects it (deadlines and deposit contents). The caveat about empty summaries further clarifies how to interpret results, leaving little inference.

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