List Instructor Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful ordering behavior ('most recent first'), which the annotations do not convey, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what the openWorld flag implies in practice.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with verb first, scope in the middle, and ordering last. No wasted words, though it is terse enough that parameter guidance is absent rather than merely compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required and the annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with a required 'course' parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves a real gap: an agent gets no guidance on supplying or formatting the required argument.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter. The required 'course' parameter — the one an agent must supply to call the tool at all — is completely undocumented, as is the 'limit' default of 20. The description only hints at the author-type scope, not how to scope a query.

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 (List) and resource (notes and polls written by instructors) and clarifies content scope with examples ('announcements and logistics'). It implicitly separates itself from generic siblings like list_posts/search_posts by restricting to instructor-authored content, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 'written by instructors' implies when this tool is appropriate versus general post tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is left to inference from the sibling set.

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