get_study_overview

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it reports missing or partial sources, surfaces conflicting dates, and explicitly does not infer completion or start attempts. These caveats are useful for an agent deciding whether this tool's answer is authoritative.

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?

Two dense sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the behavioral caveats in the second sentence. There is no fluff, though the long comma-separated list of content types makes the first sentence slightly heavy.

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 3-parameter aggregate read tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level list of what is returned and important caveats. However, it does not describe the response shape, explain how days or includeAnnouncements affect results, or clarify the meaning of 'single sourced' well enough to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 needed to compensate by explaining courseIds, days, and includeAnnouncements. It only indirectly covers courseIds with 'selected courses' and includeAnnouncements with 'recent announcements'; days is never mentioned, and no parameter-level meaning or constraints are added in prose.

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 names a specific operation ('Get a single sourced overview') and lists concrete content types (due dates, calendar deadlines, access closing times, events, announcements), so an agent can tell this is an aggregate read across courses. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_upcoming_deadlines or get_calendar, but the aggregation scope makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 implies when to use it: whenever a consolidated multi-source overview across selected courses is needed. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using list_assignments, list_quizzes, get_calendar, or get_announcements individually, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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