study_deadlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: results include assignments with unknown dates even though a date range is required. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that also carries the two most important qualifiers (inclusive range, unknown-date inclusion). No filler.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, range semantics, and the notable unknown-date behavior. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on ordering or how the two parameter values are interpreted relative to assignment dates.

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 both parameters (start, end) are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and that the bounds are inclusive, which is real added value, but it leaves questions like timezone handling and whether the range is on due date or start date unaddressed.

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 (List) and resource (assignment deadlines) with a clear scope constraint (between two dates, inclusive) and an extra behavior (unknown-date assignments). It doesn't name or differentiate against near siblings such as study_agenda or study_plan, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance, no indication of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like study_agenda or study_plan. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is the deadline-focused view.

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