Get My Override

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" adds nothing. The one piece of real behavioral value is that the returned dates are override-adjusted per user, which explains what the values mean. It is silent on what happens when no override exists (default vs error) and on the shape of the response.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned followed by the selection rule. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content beyond the single redundant "Read-only".

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (due, lock, unlock dates) and whose perspective they reflect. It leaves a small gap around fallback behavior when an assignment has no override, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters already name their source tools (list_courses, list_assignments/list_upcoming_assignments). The description adds no additional meaning about the identifiers, so the 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 verb and resource (get the due, lock and unlock dates for an assignment) and qualifies scope precisely: the dates that actually apply to the caller after section or individual overrides. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_assignment_dates (raw defaults) and list_assignment_overrides (all overrides, not just mine).

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?

"Use this instead of the default dates when deadlines differ by section" gives an explicit selection rule and an implicit alternative. It stops short of naming the sibling to use otherwise (e.g., get_assignment_dates) or clarifying when list_assignment_overrides is the better call, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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