list_due_soon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: results are sorted by due date and limited to active courses. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, result volume, pagination, or what happens to courses not marked active.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then uses a compact Args block. The parameter restatement is justified because the schema has zero description coverage, though it is slightly terse on format details.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, ordering, and both parameters adequately. It stops short of describing return shape (e.g., coursework fields, grouping by course) or result limits, which an agent would benefit from.

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, and it does: 'days' is defined as a look-ahead window with a stated default, and 'include_overdue' is explained as also returning items whose due date has passed. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether 'days' counts from now and how overdue items interact with the window.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Upcoming coursework across all active courses') plus ordering ('sorted by due date'), so the agent knows it is a scoped, time-windowed list rather than a generic coursework fetch. It does not explicitly name list_coursework as the unfiltered alternative, so differentiation from siblings is only implicit.

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 'upcoming' framing implies the intended context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over list_coursework, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name and the first sentence alone.

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