get_upcoming_deadlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: results are ordered soonest-first, assignment entries carry submission status, and overdue assignments that still accept late submissions are included rather than excluded. Only caching/refresh nuance is absent, and that lives in the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the contents, then the alternative. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 formatting need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies what remains: scope across courses, sort order, inclusion of overdue-late items, and the pointer to get_assignment_details for detail.

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 refresh and days_ahead are documented in the schema, including the cache semantics of refresh), so the baseline is 3. The description implies a forward-looking window but does not restate the default horizon or the 1-120 day bound, adding nothing beyond the schema.

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+resource with explicit scope ('across all of the student's courses, soonest first') and enumerates the contents: assignments with submission status plus quiz/exam deadlines from course calendars. This clearly distinguishes it from list_assignments (per-course listing) and get_calendar, and the extra note about overdue late-submission items nails down what 'upcoming' includes.

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?

Routes the agent to a related tool: 'Use get_assignment_details with an assignment_id for the full brief,' establishing that this tool returns summaries, not detail. It gives clear context for when this tool applies but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_assignments or get_calendar.

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