blackboard_search_downloaded_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine context: bounded limits ('límites'), coverage warnings ('avisos de cobertura') and the absence of OCR/external access. This is useful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core function is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion clause. Efficiently sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Covers purpose and exclusions but, with 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema, leaves the agent without needed detail on result-cap semantics or return shape. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this parameter count.

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 all 5 parameters (query, maxFiles, maxPages, maxResults, subdirectory), so the description carries the full burden but offers only a generic mention of 'límites'. It never explains what the three max* caps or the subdirectory filter actually control.

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+resource (search terms in the text of already-downloaded materials) and scopes it clearly to local downloaded files, which distinguishes it from siblings like blackboard_search_contents or blackboard_search_multi_course_contents. The scope is clear, 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?

Implies usage context with explicit exclusions ('no consulta archivos externos ni hace OCR'), which tells the agent when NOT to call it. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a positive when-to-use condition, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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