brightspace_get_deadlines

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: due dates and availability end dates are kept distinct (a real semantic trap for an agent summarizing deadlines), and results may have coverage gaps that must be reported. It does not describe what the merged result looks like (fields per item, source labeling) or how pagination interacts with the aggregation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the aggregation scope and then the two most consequential caveats. No filler. The final sentence is an output instruction to the agent rather than a description of the tool, but it earns its place by warning that coverage may be partial.

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 six-parameter, no-output-schema aggregator the description is lean but not complete: it never explains the shape of the returned records (source, title, type, date kind) or the default 14-day window, which matter for calling it correctly. Given no output schema exists, the return-format burden falls on the description and is left unaddressed.

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%, so every parameter — start, end, daysAhead, limit, offset, courseIds — is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, such as how daysAhead interacts with an explicit start/end or what happens when courseIds is omitted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

Names a specific action (aggregate structured dates) and explicitly lists the four sources it pulls from — assignments, quizzes, calendar, content — which distinguishes it from the per-source siblings like brightspace_get_assignments and brightspace_get_calendar. It never names a sibling directly, so differentiation is implied by scope rather than stated.

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?

Aggregation across sources implies the use case: a consolidated deadline view rather than a single-source listing. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when to call the narrower siblings, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether course IDs must be accessible or what happens when courseIds is omitted).

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