ntulearn_get_announcements

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is additive. It contributes ordering guarantees ('newest first'), the fan-out default, per-item courseId attribution for cross-course views, and pagination support — useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Multiple short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and default behavior before parameter guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the closing 'Supports pagination' is thin relative to the schema's own offset/nextOffset documentation.

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-value explanation is not required. Given five all-optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: default scope, scoping mechanism, time filtering, attribution, and pagination.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents limit, since, offset, course_ids, and response_format thoroughly. The description adds marginal value with a concrete course_ids example and a use-case framing for since, which nudges it above baseline.

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 ('Get'), an unambiguous resource ('announcements'), the scope ('across your enrolled courses'), and the ordering ('newest first'). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ntulearn_get_assignments, ntulearn_get_upcoming, and ntulearn_get_gradebook, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: default fans out across all courses, pass course_ids to scope, and use since to narrow to recent items. It clearly describes when to apply each parameter but does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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