Read a course content item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the list of returned fields (body text, file metadata, etc.), which gives useful context about the output. However, it does not add behavioral traits like performance implications, error handling, or response formatting. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates the content, the second gives a concrete use case. It is front-loaded with the core function and appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (rendered body text, file metadata, external link, due date, embedded files) is the primary guide to the response. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions and the read-only annotation, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It could add more about response formatting, but it is adequate.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including examples and default behavior for includeChildren. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (read) and resource (content item) and enumerates the detail fields: rendered body text, attached file metadata, external link target, due date, and embedded files. It also names the use case ('announcement-style document or assignment brief'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like bb_list_content or bb_search_content.

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 description gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to actually read an announcement-style document or assignment brief.' This implies it is for fetching full content rather than just listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria, though the context is clear.

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