Get My Upcoming Assignments

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

The description discloses critical server-side caps (roughly 1 week, at most 20 events) and the silent truncation behavior, which annotations cannot convey. It also notes the authenticated-student scope. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, which only cover safety and world-openness, not the endpoint's hard limits.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the critical limits, and the routing to the alternative. The most important behavioral constraint (the caps) is front-loaded in the second sentence, and the alternative is given at the end. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, its hard limits, its silent truncation, and the alternative for broader needs. The annotations cover safety, and the sibling list provides the broader context. Nothing is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to add. The description compensates by explaining the implicit fixed window and the alternative for custom ranges. A 4 is appropriate because there is nothing more to document about parameters, though the description could theoretically mention that no parameters are accepted.

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'), a specific resource ('upcoming assignment events'), and a scope ('for the authenticated student'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_calendar_events and get_upcoming_events by naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for the default upcoming window) and when not to use it (for longer or specific date ranges), naming the alternative tool and the parameters to use instead. This is explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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