connects_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds domain context about Connects versus Blackboard but no extra behavioral details such as pagination behavior or result ordering. Given the annotations, this is a neutral score.

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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful routing qualifier without redundant detail.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with two obvious pagination parameters and an existing output schema, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about when to prefer connects_courses over connects_course or blackboard_courses, but nothing critical is missing.

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 explain limit or offset at all. The parameter names, defaults, and constraints in the schema carry the meaning, but the description itself contributes no parameter-level value, falling short of what is needed when schema descriptions are absent.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Connects courses'), immediately clarifying what the tool does. It also differentiates from Blackboard tools, helping the agent distinguish it from siblings like blackboard_courses and connects_course.

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 explicitly says to use Blackboard tools for LMS readings, assessments, and grades, which is a clear exclusion and points the agent to alternatives. It does not explicitly mention connectors like connects_course for detail views, but the list-oriented verb and the Blackboard routing note give adequate context.

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