canvas_announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: long messages are truncated in this list, which an agent must know before relying on the content. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the schema covers the page parameter.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the truncation caveat plus alternative follow immediately.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, truncation behavior, and the full-read alternative. Pagination is handled by the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though a note on result ordering or default page size would round it out.

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%, so all three parameters (raw, page, course_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List course announcements', which is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling list tools. It also names a related tool for full reads, though that tool (canvas_discussion) covers discussions rather than announcements, which slightly muddies the routing signal.

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?

It gives a clear use condition: use this list to browse, and go to canvas_discussion when a full message is needed. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of pagination limits, but the primary alternative is named.

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