list_assessments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only hints that results include due dates and teacher names. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, scope (courses/term), ordering, or pagination, which are exactly what a list tool needs to disclose when annotations are absent.

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?

It is a single tight fragment with no waste, which is good, but brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. A few more words establishing the action and scope would earn their 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the zero-parameter surface is simple. However, with no annotations and no guidance on the FA/SDL jargon or sibling selection, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to choose it confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty argument object is self-explanatory.

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 resource (FA/SDL assessments) and the fields it carries, but it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the 'list' action. The unexplained 'FA/SDL' acronym and the lack of differentiation from siblings like assignments_overview or list_courses leave an agent guessing at the exact scope.

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 no when-to-use guidance at all – no statement of when this beats assignments_overview or list_courses for assessment data. The agent gets only the content hint, with no context or exclusions.

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