Get Quiz Assignment Overrides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely a restatement. The description adds the useful scope detail that results are grouped per section/student rather than per quiz, but discloses nothing about volume, pagination, or whether students with no override appear.

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 sentences, zero filler; the purpose is stated first and the routing hint second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and routing adequately. Adding the shape of a returned override (user/section plus due date) would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 (course_id with a list_courses hint, and the optional quiz ID array) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('Get'), resource ('quiz assignment overrides'), and scope ('section- or student-specific due dates for quizzes in a course'), so an agent can identify the call without opening the schema. It distinguishes itself from get_my_override, though it does not differentiate from list_assignment_overrides, the closest sibling covering non-quiz assignments.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative (get_my_override) and the condition that selects it – dates that apply to *you* on one assignment. It lacks a stated negative condition for the course-wide case, but the differentiation is clear enough to route correctly.

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