blackboard_course

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable boundary condition with 'Restricted sections remain unavailable,' warning that results may be partial depending on access. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is one efficient sentence with no filler, and the restricted-section caveat is packed in without bloating the text. It is concise and front-loaded, though it is a noun phrase rather than a complete imperative statement.

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?

The tool is simple enough that the description plus annotations and output schema provide a workable definition. Still, it lacks guidance on identifying a specific course and does not help an agent choose between this and nearby sibling tools.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It maps several view options to prose, but it omits the 'membership' enum value and does not explain the required 'course' parameter format or the limit/offset behavior.

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 names the resource (course) and enumerates the data areas it exposes: details, role, roster/instructors, timetable, tools, and progress. This makes the tool's scope reasonably distinct from siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 listed views imply when to use this tool, such as retrieving a specific course's roster or schedule. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives like blackboard_courses or blackboard_content, so routing must be inferred.

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