list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context with the return line format ('periode type: naam @ref'), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth.

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 compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The output-format fragment is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but it still earns its 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?

With one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing piece an agent would want: the shape of the returned lines. Only pagination/ordering behavior is 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% and the schema already states '1, 2 or 3; omit for all'. The description's 'per leerjaar' merely echoes the parameter rather than adding syntax or default behavior, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('GLU Web Development assignments') with scope ('per leerjaar, plus other top-level pages'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings 'read' and 'search', which keeps it short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings 'read' or 'search', and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name and the phrase 'per leerjaar'.

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