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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is the complete body text (as opposed to a listing excerpt), and says nothing about pagination, truncation of long notices, or access requirements for a course the user may not be enrolled in.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the 'full text' scope stated immediately. Nothing redundant and nothing to trim.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and both parameters are documented, so the essentials are present for a simple detail-fetch tool. The remaining gap is behavioral: no note on permissions, cross-course id validity, or what happens for an invalid post_id.

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 coverage is 100% and both required ids are documented in the schema with concrete sourcing hints ('e.g. from list_courses', 'e.g. from list_notices'). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (notice/announcement) with a scope qualifier ('full text of one'), which implicitly differentiates it from the sibling list_notices that returns previews. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of 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 only implied: 'one notice' signals the single-item counterpart to list_notices, and the schema description ('post id, e.g. from list_notices') reinforces the list-then-detail flow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_qna_detail or get_course_updates_since.

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