canvas_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the meaningful scoping detail that only the caller's own submission metadata is returned, not the whole class's. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite a max_pages cap of 20, which is real behavioral information an agent would want.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb comes first and the returned fields follow. It is efficient but so terse that the list of fields substitutes for actual guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gaps are the undocumented pagination parameter and the unresolved ambiguity with canvas_submission, which the description leaves an agent to guess at.

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%, so the description must carry the load and it does not: neither course_id nor max_pages is mentioned. max_pages in particular controls how many pages of assignments are fetched (up to 20), and the description gives no hint that results may be truncated or how to retrieve more.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('assignment') and enumerates the payload it exposes: instructions, due dates, points, and own submission metadata. That is enough for an agent to know what it retrieves, though it never contrasts itself with canvas_submission or canvas_read, which overlap on the submission-data angle.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite framing, and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call canvas_assignments or canvas_submission when it needs submission state, since the description claims to expose 'own submission metadata' without clarifying the boundary.

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