list_deadlines

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

The annotation set is thin (no read-only guarantee, no idempotence), but the description adds one meaningful behavior: results are inferred heuristically from calendar wording rather than being explicit calendar entries. It does not disclose the default refresh behavior, potential cache writes, or consequences of include_cancelled, which could matter for a tool flagged with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core differentiating detail ('inferred from Learn calendar wording') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the output schema and six-parameter input surface, the description gives no usage conditions, parameter semantics, or behavioral caveats. An agent has to guess what 'refresh' does, how 'days' affects inference, and whether 'course_code' is a filter or a target, which makes the tool under-specified for reliable 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across six parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names none of them and gives no guidance on days, refresh, course_code, or include_cancelled. The parameter names and defaults offer some intuition, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and names a distinct resource ('deadline and peer-feedback items inferred from Learn calendar wording'). This clearly positions the tool against siblings like list_upcoming and get_calendar_item, even without naming them.

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 phrase 'inferred from Learn calendar wording' implies this tool is for derived academic deadlines rather than raw calendar events, giving some selection context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_upcoming or get_calendar_changes, nor mention any exclusions.

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