Read Blackboard announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is implicit. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the batch API default, ordering (newest first), and the distinction between full text and preview (via fullText). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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: the first states the core behavior and ordering; the second covers default scope and a use case. Every word earns its place, and the most critical info (what it lists) is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, default scoping, and an example usage. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error cases, but those are less critical given the read-only annotation. What's needed to decide whether to call it is present.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description mentions 'full text' and default scoping, which aligns with parameters but doesn't add new semantic depth beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists course announcements with their full text, newest first.' It immediately conveys the tool's core function and adds distinguishing details (coverage of all courses vs. one course) that set it apart from sibling tools like bb_list_content or bb_todo.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Use this for "what did my instructors post?" or catching up after time away.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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