List Assignment Overrides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. It adds no behavioral context beyond that — no permission requirements (e.g., who can see overrides), no pagination or result-size behavior, no statement about what happens with empty override sets. Adequate against an annotation-covered baseline, but thin.

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 short sentences; the purpose statement is front-loaded and the alternative-tool routing follows immediately. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only source for return shape, and it only implies the content ('dates or extensions') without naming fields such as due date, title, or which section/group/student each override targets. Safety and prerequisite information is fully carried by annotations, so this is close to complete, with return-value characterization the one gap.

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%; both course_id and assignment_id already document format and where to obtain the values (list_courses, list_assignments). The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (due-date overrides on an assignment) with an explanatory gloss ('different dates or extensions for sections, groups or individual students') that tells an agent exactly what an override is. The scope word 'assignment' separates it from get_quiz_assignment_overrides without naming it.

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 routes the agent to a sibling: 'Use get_my_override for the dates that apply to you' — a clear condition selecting the alternative. It offers no exclusion for quiz overrides (get_quiz_assignment_overrides) and no note on whether this is for instructors vs students, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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