blackboard_list_grade_periods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in the annotations — that the returned list may be empty — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a period record contains.

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 filler, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the disambiguating caveat. Structure is efficient, though the leading noun phrase is slightly weaker than a verb-first statement of purpose.

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 a one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage this is adequate, but with no output schema the description gives no hint of the return shape, and the lone required parameter's expected format is left entirely to the schema pattern.

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 description never mentions courseId or its required '^_\d+_\d+$' format. With a single required parameter that the schema leaves undocumented, the description should compensate for the gap and does not; only the self-explanatory parameter name limits the damage.

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 names a specific resource — the evaluation periods configured in the course gradebook — which an agent can distinguish from other gradebook entities. It lacks an explicit verb (the 'list' action is only carried by the tool name) and does not differentiate from siblings such as blackboard_get_grade_columns or blackboard_get_grade_categories, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence ('no determina el periodo oficial de matrícula') implicitly scopes usage by ruling out the enrollment-period interpretation, but it never states when to call this tool versus a sibling, nor does it name any alternative. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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