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 results are scoped to a single course's Notices board; it says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or how many notices come back on a course with a long history.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing hint toward get_notice_detail for a single announcement, which matters given how many sibling list/get pairs exist here.

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% and the single course_id parameter is well documented in the schema (numeric PLATO/Moodle id, sourced from list_courses). The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (announcements on a course's Notices board), which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_notice_detail, so the agent gets no signal about list-vs-detail selection from the description.

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 course-scoped framing implies when to reach for it (browsing a course's notices), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of get_notice_detail as the follow-up for reading a single announcement. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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