blackboard_list_people

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently reveals a key privacy behavior: 'Contact email is only included for instructors — classmates' emails are never returned, even with search.' This adds meaningful context beyond basic listing, though it does not describe all return fields or error handling.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first identifies the subject, the second gives the primary use case, and the third covers search and the important privacy caveat. No wasted words.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description partially explains return content (instructors and classmates, contact email for instructors only) but does not explicitly list all fields. The main functionality and notable edge case (email privacy) are covered, making it reasonably complete for a simple list tool.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra value: 'Pass search to look up one person by name' restates the schema's 'Name of one person in the course.' The description does not introduce syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists instructors and classmates of a course, with a specific use case: resolving an internal user id into a person's name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on course people, not courses, announcements, or assignments.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use it to resolve an internal user id into a person's name' and 'Pass search to look up one person by name.' It gives practical guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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