brightspace_get_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses a visibility filter on results and a meaningful caveat that a missing submission receipt leaves completion status unknown — behavior not encoded in any structured field.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the folderId behavior and the receipt caveat. Dense but slightly elliptical — 'check your own submission receipts' is not explained in terms of a parameter or field.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only loosely enumerates fields (instructions, dates, rubric metadata, receipts) without structure. The submission-receipt/completion sentence is ambiguous about where that data comes from, leaving a gap for a read tool with four parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents courseId, folderId, limit and offset including defaults and constraints. The description adds only that folderId returns a single *visible* assignment, which is a modest semantic addition over the schema's 'Optional assignment ID' text.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read assignment instructions, dates and available rubric metadata') and explains the folderId branch that returns a single assignment. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling brightspace_get_assignment_rubrics, which overlaps with the 'rubric metadata' claim, so an agent cannot fully rule out the alternative.

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?

There is an implied usage rule: omit folderId to list, supply it to fetch one visible assignment. However, no explicit when-to-use versus brightspace_get_assignment_rubrics or brightspace_get_deadlines is given, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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