announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds some useful context by framing the result as 'Recent posts' and explaining the days window and course scoping, but it does not disclose ordering, limits, or how the open-world hint affects the returned posts. Overall it provides modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences plus a bulleted argument list, with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each line earns its place by adding either scope or parameter semantics.

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 tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns, the time filter, and the course filter. It does not mention ordering or result limits, but the output schema likely captures return structure, so this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It does this well: 'days: How far back to look' clarifies the time window, and 'course: Limit to one course (code like "CS-214", id, or name)' gives concrete accepted formats that the schema does not provide. It would benefit from specifying the unit for days more explicitly, but it is still genuinely helpful.

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 states the resource clearly: 'Recent posts in the courses' Announcements (news) forums.' It identifies exactly what the tool returns and distinguishes it from related tools like read_discussion or whats_new, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. A more explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get' would make it stronger.

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 description implies usage through the parameter documentation ('How far back to look', 'Limit to one course') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as whats_new, read_discussion, or upcoming_deadlines. There are no exclusions or conditions directing the agent to a sibling tool.

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