Get Blackboard assignments

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

The description adds behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: results are combined and deduplicated from course content, the gradebook, and the calendar. It also explicitly restates the read-only nature. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but with readOnlyHint=true the safety profile is already established.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The core behavior and data sources are front-loaded, and the optional scoping is stated compactly. 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotation but harmless.

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 list tool with fully documented optional parameters and no required arguments, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the sources, deduplication, and optional filters. A small gap is the absence of any return-shape hint or ordering behavior, but this is not critical given the tool's simple listing purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a helpful grouping ('scope to one course and/or a due-date window') but does not deepen the meaning of include_status or the ISO date format beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('assignments and assessments with due dates'), and adds how it behaves: combined and deduplicated across three Blackboard sources. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_grades, get_course_content, and get_announcements.

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 implies the tool is the unified assignment-list entry point and mentions optional course/date scoping, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_assignments over similar siblings like get_upcoming_work or get_assignment_context. The usage context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.

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