Background: Recent reviews have not comprehensively addressed palliative care (PC) assessment tools. This project summarizes the extent of evidence about PC assessment tools for patients and families, and how tools have been used for clinical care, quality indicators, and evaluation of interventions. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of assessment tools for PC, from January 2007 to March 2016. We searched the grey literature for domains without systematic reviews, and for domains with systematic reviews > three years old. Paired investigators independently screened search results and grey literature to determine eligibility, and assessed risk of bias of systematic reviews. The team selected the most recent and highest-quality systematic reviews for each domain. One investigator abstracted information, and a second investigator checked the information. Results: Using the National Consensus Project Palliative Care Guidelines domains, we included nine systematic reviews with 167 tools, and six tools from grey literature. Most tools were in physical, psychological, psychiatric, and social aspects of care, care at the end of life, and tools that cross domains (quality of life and caregiver-reported experience). Only two tools directly addressed spiritual aspects and none addressed cultural or patient-reported experience. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated for almost all tools; most reported construct validity; and few reported responsiveness (sensitivity to change). Few studies evaluated the use of assessment tools in quality indicators or clinical practice. A systematic review of 38 PC interventions and the assessment tools used found that at least 25 interventions included physical, psychosocial and psychiatric, and quality of life tools, but the tools varied extensively, and only nine included patient experience tools. Conclusions: Although assessment tools exist in many PC domains, tools are needed to assess spiritual and cultural aspects of care, and patient-reported experience. Research is needed concerning: tools in clinical practice and quality of care; comparison of existing tools; and evaluation and dissemination tools with evidence of responsiveness.