List Course Deadlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns items and pagination metadata 'unchanged' and operates on 'one course', which is useful context about the return behavior and scope. This is a modest addition beyond annotations but not contradictory.

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 that is concise and front-loads the core purpose before giving the parameter hint. There is no fluff or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation. It could be slightly more structured, but the brevity is effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining what the tool returns; it only offers a high-level 'deadline items and pagination metadata unchanged', without detailing the structure of items or pagination metadata. It also lacks explanations for limit, cursor, and language, and provides no info on when to use it relative to siblings. The description is too thin for a tool with this parameter count and pagination complexity.

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 compensate for all parameters. It only mentions layerId (with a source hint) but completely ignores limit, cursor, and language. For a tool with four parameters, especially pagination-related ones, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about the remaining parameters' purposes and formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('one course's deadline items'), and further clarifies that it returns pagination metadata unchanged. It distinguishes the tool's single-course scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to differentiate from. The purpose is clear and not a mere tautology.

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?

The description provides a usage hint by instructing to 'Supply layerId from enrolled or bookable course data', which tells the agent where to source the required parameter. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any exclusion criteria. The guidance is partial but not misleading.

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