Get Announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's '[네트워크]' tag is the only added behavioral signal (presumably a live network call rather than a cached read), but it is cryptic and unexplained, so the added value is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized for a tool that must be distinguished from 25 siblings.

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 and annotations cover behavior, so the description need not explain returns. Still, for a read tool in a crowded eclass namespace it omits the one thing structured fields cannot supply: what the '[네트워크]' qualifier means and when this call is preferable to its siblings.

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 parameters (limit with default 20, course_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing information beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('가져옵니다'/fetch) and resource ('강의 공지사항'/course announcements), which is enough to separate it from get_assignments, get_grades, and get_materials. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from close siblings such as eclass_get_courses, and the '[네트워크]' prefix is left unexplained.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g. whether course_id must come from get_courses), or which alternative to pick. The only implicit hint is the '[네트워크]' tag, which is never defined.

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