blackboard_search_contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable scope boundary — that it indexes titles, published text and filenames only, not attachment interiors — which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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, zero filler, with the positive scope stated first and the important exclusion second. Nothing redundant with the title or name.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what is excluded, but says nothing about result caps/pagination behavior or how query matching works. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent may want closed.

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 67%, with defaults for maxDepth, maxItems, maxResults and includeAttachments already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, so the baseline 3 applies given the moderate coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Busca') and resource scope ('títulos, texto publicado y nombres de archivos de un árbol de curso'), which distinguishes it from repository-wide searches. The closing negation further separates it from tools that read attachment contents, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement, and the note that attachments are not read hints that a different tool is needed for PDF/Word content. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing to named alternatives such as blackboard_search_downloaded_materials.

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