list_assignments

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so that burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'Time remaining is calculated now' tells the agent that time-remaining is computed at call time rather than stored, and 'fetched_at shows source freshness' warns that underlying data may be stale. This is real context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded and free of filler. Each sentence delivers distinct information: what is returned, how time values behave, and how to retrieve the full set.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by describing returned fields (status, scores, deadlines, time remaining, fetched_at) and the pagination requirement. However, with seven undocumented filter parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks the detail needed to drive the filters correctly.

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 0% across seven parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It mentions pagination generically but never names limit/offset, and says nothing about query, status, course_id, due_after, or due_before semantics, such as what 'effective visible deadlines' means for date filtering.

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 resource ('assignments') and goes further by enumerating the returned facets: status, scores, and effective visible deadlines. It is clearly distinguishable from single-item siblings like get_assignment, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_coursework or get_submission.

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?

'Paginate to retrieve all' implies this is the bulk-listing tool and hints at usage, but it never states when to prefer this over get_assignment (single item) or search_coursework (search). No prerequisites, filters-to-use conditions, or exclusions are given despite seven available filter parameters.

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