canvas_deadlines

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond the schema by stating that either a token or a unified-password session is accepted, which removes a common pre-call blocker. However, it never states that the operation is read-only and non-destructive, nor what the result set looks like, leaving the safety profile implicit.

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?

One compact sentence with the core resource front-loaded and the authentication note trailing as a secondary clause. Nothing is redundant or padded. It is short to the point of omitting useful routing detail, but not verbose.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one optional parameter, so low description volume is reasonable. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have said what a deadline entry contains (course, title, due timestamp) and whether results are sorted. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding whether this answers its question.

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%: the single 'days' parameter already documents its meaning, 1-180 bounds, and default of 14. The description only restates 'next N days' without adding format, boundary, or default behavior clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 states a concrete resource and scope: Canvas assignment deadlines falling within the next N days. An agent can tell this is an upcoming-deadline query rather than a submission or file tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby canvas_todo or canvas_assignment_info siblings, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

Usage is implied by the 'within the next N days' window, which suggests a look-ahead deadline check, and the parenthetical tells the agent authentication is flexible. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to canvas_todo / canvas_assignment_info for related needs, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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