overdue_assignments

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits, so the description earns credit for extra behavior: that due dates are extension-adjusted, that only current courses are scanned by default, and that items are filtered by age. It omits auth/permission or rate-limit context, but for a scoped read tool this is substantive added value.

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, roughly 60 words, with the core definition front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (extension adjustment, course scoping, age filter, cut-off flag) carries distinct information.

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 values need not be enumerated, yet the description still explains the key semantic field can_still_submit. Combined with both parameters being covered, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does: course_id scopes the scan to one course instead of the default current-course set, and max_age_days is explained as an age cut-off. It doesn't restate the 120-day default or clarify units beyond 'days', keeping it from a 5.

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 precise resource and predicate: assignments whose extension-adjusted due date has passed AND that Moodle reports as not submitted. That two-part condition cleanly distinguishes it from upcoming_assignments and submission_status without needing to name them.

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 clear selection context: default scope is current courses, and items older than max_age_days are ignored. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. upcoming_assignments) or stating when-not to use it, but the contrast is strongly implied by the 'passed due date' framing.

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