blackboard_get_course_overview

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it flags inaccessible sources ('señala fuentes no accesibles'). No other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or failure modes are given.

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?

One compact sentence with the main action front-loaded and no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the information provided.

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 an aggregator tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the scope of 'detalle del curso' or how the flagged inaccessible sources affect results, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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% and the single required parameter courseId is not mentioned in the description. The unusual pattern (^_\d+_\d+$) is undocumented, leaving the agent without format guidance.

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?

Specific verb 'Reúne' and enumerates resources (course detail, announcements, root contents, activities, grades), making the aggregation scope clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like blackboard_get_course or blackboard_get_course_review_summary, which also deal with course-level data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives; it only states what it aggregates. The condition for selecting an overview versus a focused tool is left entirely to inference.

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