Get Upcoming Due Dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data provenance (dropbox folders, quizzes, graded discussions, calendar events of type 'event'), which is real context, but says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, timezone handling, or pagination limits. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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: the first front-loads the core action with provenance detail, the second handles usage. The source enumeration in sentence one is somewhat clause-heavy, but nothing is wasted and the order is sensible.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is fetched, from where, and when to call it. It does not hint at the returned structure (fields, sorting, time window defaults), which would help an agent interpret results, but the essentials are present.

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 both parameters (courseId, daysAhead) are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The phrase 'across all your courses' does imply the unfiltered default behavior when courseId is omitted, which adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema but not enough to raise the score.

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 (fetch upcoming due dates) and defines scope precisely: across all courses, derived from assignments, quizzes, graded discussions, plus calendar events of type 'event'. An agent can distinguish it from get_assignments or get_calendar_events because it is explicitly an aggregation across those sources.

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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases: deadlines, what's due, upcoming work, what they need to do this week. That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative (e.g., get_calendar_events for non-graded events) or states exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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