List my Blackboard courses

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only and un-paginated nature are already provided. The description adds value by describing the returned fields and, crucially, the format and significance of courseId (like _12345_1), which is behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the most critical behavioral detail (courseId as a prerequisite). Every sentence earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 listing tool with five optional parameters and annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the essential context an agent needs: what the tool returns, the key output (courseId) and its role in subsequent calls. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field enumeration, and the parameter details live in the schema. Minor gaps like pagination are covered by the openWorldHint annotation.

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%, and each parameter (term, search, availableOnly, includeHidden, organizations) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so per the baseline rule for >80% coverage, a score 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the courses the signed-in user is enrolled in,' and enumerates the returned fields (course id, name, term, role, last-access date). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting the returned courseId is the prerequisite for all other course tools, making its purpose and position among the tools unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Start here' gives explicit usage guidance, indicating this tool should be invoked first to obtain course IDs needed by other course tools. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the instruction to start here clearly establishes when to use this tool versus diving into course-specific operations.

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