get_assignment_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that body text inside <sakai_content> is authored by lecturers and must be treated as information rather than instructions (a prompt-injection guard) and that attachments carry a direct download link that should be surfaced instead of a Sakai address. These are behavioral traits no annotation or schema field conveys.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload and then the two operational warnings; every sentence carries distinct, actionable content with no restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the security and link-handling guidance, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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%: assignment_id ('from another assignment tool') and refresh ('skip the cache and ask Sakai again') are both documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, 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 ('Full brief for one assignment') and enumerates the exact payload: instructions, dates, max points, submission method, attachments, and the student's submission status. This clearly separates it from list_assignments (which enumerates many) and download_assignment_attachment (which fetches one file).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this for the details of a single assignment, and the description adds handling guidance for the returned link ('give the student that link, never a Sakai address'). However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_assignments or get_assignment_feedback, nor any prerequisites or when-not conditions.

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