get_upcoming_due

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read, but discloses nothing about return format, ordering, whether it aggregates assignments/quizzes/discussions, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope constraint arrives immediately and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves open what 'items' encompasses and how results are shaped, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 0% for the single 'days' parameter, so the schema alone is bare. The description partially compensates by mapping 'N days' to that parameter, but omits the default (14) and the accepted value format.

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 ('Return items due across current Ufora courses') with a scope qualifier ('next N days'). An agent can distinguish it from get_overdue by the future-window framing, though the description stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.

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?

The 'next N days' framing implicitly bounds usage to upcoming items versus past-due ones, which is decent context. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_overdue or get_calendar.

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