overdue

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the scope ('across all enrolled courses') but does not clarify expected behavior such as whether it aggregates by course, whether it is read-only, or what the return structure looks like. For a simple lookup tool this is partially acceptable, but the absence of any behavioral detail is a gap.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and the most important qualifiers ('unsubmitted', 'past-due', 'across all enrolled courses') are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though adding a verb would make it slightly more polished.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential information needed to decide whether to invoke it: the result is unsubmitted past-due assignments across all enrolled courses. It is simple enough that additional details like return format are not critical, though an explicit action verb would improve completeness.

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, and the schema is fully covered by that absence. The description adds useful context by indicating the operation uses the implicit set of enrolled courses and requires no user-supplied arguments. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource: unsubmitted past-due assignments across all enrolled courses, which differentiates it from siblings like upcoming and list_assignments. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', but the noun phrase and tool name make the intended action reasonably clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The scope wording implies it is for overdue work rather than upcoming or all assignments, but the description does not state that or mention the sibling tools.

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