learnus_get_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned content (instructions, due date, attachments, submission/grading status), which is meaningful given there is no output schema; it stops short of noting auth or pagination behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage and anti-usage clauses. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction with no repetition.

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?

Single required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and the description compensates for the absent output schema by naming what is returned. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the cmid parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where it comes from. The description only echoes 'canonical activity cmid', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (gets one assignment) plus the scope of returned data (instructions, due date, attachments, submission/grading status) and the lookup key (canonical activity cmid). An agent can distinguish it from list/search siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger (user asks for details or status of a specific known assignment) and explicit exclusions (not for searching across courses, not for submitting/editing). This leaves nothing to inference.

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