School MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It partially satisfies this by enumerating return fields (score, points possible, due date, type) and scope ('every assignment'), which helps the agent anticipate the data structure. However, it omits operational details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior for large courses, or data privacy considerations.

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 optimally concise at three sentences with zero redundancy. It follows effective front-loading: action (Get), resource (assignment-level data), return specification (Returns every assignment...), and usage guidance (Use this to...). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, simple string, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return data structure and fields. It appropriately does not attempt to document parameters already well-covered by the schema. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly confirm this is read-only (though implied by 'Get').

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'courseName' parameter, the baseline is 3. The description references it implicitly ('for a specific course'), but adds no additional syntax guidance, validation rules, or format examples beyond what the schema already provides ('Partial or full course name...').

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 tool retrieves 'detailed assignment-level data for a specific course' with specific verbs and resource identification. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_grade_summary' (high-level) and 'get_assignments_due' (temporal focus) through the 'detailed' and 'deeply analyze' qualifiers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the similarly-named 'get_gradebook' sibling.

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 includes one usage cue: 'Use this to deeply analyze a single class,' which implies when to use it (deep analysis scenarios). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for quick overviews) or which sibling to prefer for other use cases like 'get_grade_summary'.

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