blackboard_get_course_review_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution is the negation that it does not mark reviews or compute academic progress, which is a minor scoping disclosure; it says nothing about the bounded traversal, pagination, or response shape.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the purpose statement is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. It is appropriately sized but the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being crisp.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and three undocumented inputs, the description carries the full burden but supplies almost nothing. An agent lacks the information to call this correctly or distinguish it from the sibling review-status 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 description coverage is 0% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The phrase 'recorrido acotado' faintly hints at the maxDepth/maxItems bounding parameters but never explains their meaning or effect, and the courseId pattern is undocumented.

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 ('Estados propios de los contenidos configurados como revisables en un recorrido acotado') never states a clear verb+resource; it gestures at 'states of reviewable content' without saying what a 'review summary' actually returns. It reads as an abstract restatement of an opaque concept rather than a distinguishable purpose, especially against the near-identical sibling blackboard_get_content_review_status.

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 only guidance is a negative clause ('No marca revisiones ni calcula progreso académico'), which tells the agent what the tool is not but gives no positive when-to-use signal. It never contrasts itself with blackboard_get_content_review_status or blackboard_get_content_review_status, leaving selection ambiguous.

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