get_upcoming_due_dates

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior by specifying the default time range (7 days back, 30 days ahead) and the types of data returned (events, due dates, associated entities). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details, defaults, and usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure efficiently guides the agent from what the tool does to how to apply it, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, defaults, and return data. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of 'associated entity'), and the lack of annotations means some behavioral aspects like safety or performance aren't addressed.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (orgUnitId, daysBack, daysAhead) with their types and defaults. The description adds value by explaining the overall time range context ('within a time range') and default values, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get calendar events and due dates') and resources ('for a course within a time range'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_assignments or get_announcements by focusing on time-bound event retrieval. It explicitly lists what information is returned (event title, dates, entity type, course name), making the scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'By default returns events from 7 days ago to 30 days ahead' and giving concrete examples of when to use it (e.g., 'What's due this week?', 'When is the assignment due?'). This clearly defines the tool's context and distinguishes it from siblings that might handle static data like get_assignment or get_my_grades.

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