blackboard_search_multi_course_contents

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds non-obvious behavior: a 'presupuesto global de recorrido' (global traversal budget) that implies bounded/truncated results, and the explicit scope limit that remote file bodies are not read. These are genuine additions 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the constraints follow. It is efficient, though the second sentence is terse enough to be ambiguous about what the traversal budget actually constrains.

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 and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves major gaps: it does not explain the query semantics, result shape/limits (maxResults), or attachment handling. Annotations cover safety but cannot compensate for the missing parameter and return-context information.

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 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. 'En 1 a 10 secciones' loosely maps to courseIds and 'presupuesto global' vaguely hints at maxDepth/maxItems, but query, maxResults and includeAttachments are never explained, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 the searched surface (títulos, texto publicado, nombres de archivos) plus the scope of 1 to 10 sections. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts the sibling single-course search (blackboard_search_contents), so differentiation relies on the tool name alone.

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 clause 'no lee el cuerpo de archivos remotos' implicitly tells the agent when this tool is insufficient (it will not surface file contents), which is a useful boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_downloaded_materials or download_attachment.

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