get_upcoming_deadlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior—returning unsubmitted assignments with upcoming deadlines—but does not mention whether course_id filtering applies, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists, or any side-effect considerations. The read-only nature is only implicit in '조회한다'.

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 compact Korean sentence that front-loads the operation and the main filter. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant detail.

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 read-only tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the definition is mostly adequate, but it omits course_id semantics and any usage guidance relative to sibling tools. The output schema covers return-value structure, so that absence is not a gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It indirectly clarifies 'days' through '지정한 일수', but it never mentions the course_id parameter or how it filters results, leaving that entirely to inference from the parameter name.

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 (조회한다) and a precise resource (미제출 과제, unsubmitted assignments), with a clear time-window condition: deadlines within a specified number of days from today. This is enough to distinguish it from the broader list_assignments and from get_pending_assignments.

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 description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_assignments or get_pending_assignments. The time-window condition implies a use case, but no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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