What is due on Blackboard

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value beyond that by stating the tool groups by urgency, sorts by date, and spans all courses in one call. It does not contradict the annotations and reveals useful output behavior not available from structured fields alone.

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?

Three sentences deliver the tool's purpose, usage context, and output ordering with no filler. The most important details are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It states scope, grouping, sorting, and typical use cases, so nothing essential for correct usage is missing.

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%, with each parameter (days, lookBackDays, includeOverdue) already documented with type, bounds, and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 defines a specific resource: the student to-do list, covering overdue, due-today, and upcoming items across all courses. It separates this tool from siblings like bb_calendar and bb_activity_stream by framing it as the answer to 'what do I have due?'. The scope and one-call nature are explicit.

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 clear usage context by naming the exact user questions it answers: 'what do I have due?', 'am I behind?', and 'what should I work on?'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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