School MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return structure (assignment name, course, due date, point value) compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it omits operational details such as whether results are sorted, pagination behavior, error handling, or confirmation that this is a read-only operation.

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 tightly constructed sentences: first establishes purpose and scope, second discloses return values, third provides usage context. No redundant words or tautologies. Information is front-loaded effectively.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the essential contract: what it retrieves, from where, and what data is returned. Could be improved by noting read-only nature or error conditions, but sufficient for the complexity level.

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 100% ('Number of days from today to look ahead'). The description references 'next N days' which aligns with the 'days' parameter, but adds no additional semantic detail, examples, or clarifications beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action (Get upcoming assignments), scope (within next N days, across all courses), and return content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_missing_assignments' despite the semantic overlap between 'upcoming' and 'missing' deadlines.

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?

Provides implied usage context ('Useful for planning what to work on') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_missing_assignments or get_calendar. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite information is provided.

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