blackboard_announcements

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' aligns with those. It adds useful scope information ('course or system announcements') and explains that supplying IDs returns detail. It does not describe pagination behavior or response ordering, but the safety profile is well covered by 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each clause adds distinct information: scope of the read and how to get details. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 are rich, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. For a low-complexity read tool, it covers the main use cases, but it leaves limit/offset semantics unstated and does not explicitly clarify how to request system announcements (e.g., by omitting course).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does partially: 'course or system announcements' maps to the course parameter, and 'for detail' clarifies the role of announcement_id. However, limit and offset are never mentioned; their names and schema constraints imply pagination, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('course or system announcements'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose among the blackboard_* siblings. The second sentence adds a list-versus-detail distinction. It could be more explicit about how this differs from adjacent tools like blackboard_content or blackboard_dashboard, but the resource 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 clear context: this is for reading course-level or system-wide announcements. 'Provide course and announcement ID for detail' is actionable guidance for requesting a specific announcement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but no sibling tool appears to cover announcements, so the context is sufficient.

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