blackboard_get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on auth requirements, course-scope restrictions, or what 'detalle' actually comprises.

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 four-word phrase is front-loaded and contains no filler, so there is nothing to trim. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of the needed information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does not. For a tool sitting among many similar course-scoped getters, an agent cannot determine what it will receive or how it differs from blackboard_get_course_overview.

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% for the single required courseId parameter, and the description does not compensate. It never mentions that the ID must match the unusual ^_\d+_\d+$ pattern, which is exactly the kind of constraint a caller needs stated.

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 phrase 'Detalle de un curso' essentially restates the tool name (get_course) without specifying what detail is returned. It does not distinguish this tool from near-neighbours such as blackboard_get_course_overview, blackboard_get_course_outline, blackboard_get_course_agenda, or blackboard_list_courses, leaving the agent unable to tell which course-detail endpoint to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given that roughly a dozen sibling tools return course-scoped information, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap, though the text is not actively misleading.

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