blackboard_announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the distinction between course and system announcements, which is useful context, but does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, or any operational nuances beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences carry the core purpose and a key usage hint with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already documented, and annotations cover the read-only behavior. However, the description does not explicitly connect course nullability to system announcements, nor mention pagination via limit/offset, leaving some gaps for a tool with four parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It vaguely explains the purpose of course and announcement_id ('for detail') but leaves limit and offset entirely to inference. It also fails to clarify that omitting course returns system announcements, leaving the param semantics under-specified.

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 identifies the verb ('Read') and resource ('course or system announcements'), which is distinct enough from siblings like blackboard_courses or blackboard_grades. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is 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 description gives a concrete usage instruction: 'Provide course and announcement ID for detail,' which tells the agent how to get detailed announcements versus a general list. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a simple read tool.

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