blackboard_get_discussion

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 by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own (no auth requirements, no visibility/access rules despite saying 'accesible', no return shape). It also switches to Spanish while the rest of the tool surface is English, which adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; the single sentence conveys almost no actionable information. Brevity that omits the verb, scope, and parameters does not earn its place.

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 and no parameter documentation, the description is the only place an agent could learn the return shape and ID conventions, and it supplies neither. A read tool with two required opaque ID parameters needs at least that much.

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 both parameters, and the description mentions neither courseId nor discussionId, nor the required '^_\d+_\d+$' ID format. With the schema carrying all semantic weight and the description contributing nothing, it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun phrase ('Detalle y tema publicado de una discusión Ultra accesible') with no verb, essentially restating the tool name blackboard_get_discussion. It never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like blackboard_list_discussions, blackboard_list_discussion_messages, or blackboard_list_discussion_replies, so an agent cannot tell whether it returns a discussion container, its messages, or its metadata.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only implied context is that it fetches a discussion, which an agent could already infer from the name. Nothing routes it against list_discussions or list_discussion_messages.

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