learnus_get_announcement

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds value: it discloses that attachments get registered as fileIds, a side effect not captured by any annotation. It doesn't describe error behavior or what 'normalized' entails, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its side effect, then usage scope, then exclusions. No filler and every clause carries routing information.

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 two-parameter read tool this is complete: purpose, identification source, side effect, and negative scope are all stated. No output schema exists, but the description already indicates what is returned ('normalized announcement body') and the attachment registration.

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 both required params are documented there, including that the IDs come from learnus_list_announcements. The description only restates that the announcement is identified by moduleId and articleId, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Gets'), resource ('one normalized LearnUs announcement body'), and an additional effect ('registers its attachments as fileIds'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list/search siblings and from mark-read behavior, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit positive condition ('when the user asks to read a specific announcement already identified by moduleId and articleId') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use it to list or search announcements, or to mark a notice read'). Alternatives are named by function, leaving nothing to inference.

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