blackboard_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds a useful integration hint about returned IDs, but otherwise lists no additional behavioral details like pagination defaults or filter semantics beyond what annotations imply. This is acceptable given the rich annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds high-value cross-tool guidance. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of what annotations or schema already convey.

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?

Despite an output schema and safety annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool because all six parameters are undocumented and the description does not clarify their purpose or constraints. The ID-preference note is helpful, but without parameter semantics the agent cannot distinguish, for example, 'term' from 'query' or know what 'available_only' controls.

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 of explaining the six parameters. It does not explain what 'term', 'query', 'organizations', 'available_only', 'limit', or 'offset' mean. The name and defaults provide minimal inference, but the description itself adds zero parameter-level meaning, which is a major gap.

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 uses specific verbs 'List/search' and names the resource: 'enrolled courses or organizations.' This clearly distinguishes it as a collection-level discovery tool from singular siblings like blackboard_course, and the note about returned IDs being preferred for other Blackboard tools further clarifies its role.

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 provides clear context for when this tool's output is needed: 'Returned IDs are preferred for all other Blackboard tools.' This indicates the primary use case is to obtain course/organization IDs for downstream tool calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when a specific course id is already known.

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