blackboard_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Restricted sections remain unavailable', which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 very concise and front-loads the key resource and view options, then adds a useful caveat about restricted sections. It is appropriately sized for a read-only tool, though the list-like structure could be slightly clearer with an explicit verb.

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?

Given the four parameters, seven enum views, and existing annotations, the description covers the main purpose and a key restriction, but omits pagination semantics and does not explain the relationship between the view values and the parameters. The output schema helps, but the description alone is only minimally complete.

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 undocumented parameters. It paraphrases the view enum values (details, roster/instructors, timetable, tools, progress) but does not name the 'view' parameter or explain 'limit', 'offset', or 'course'. This is only partial compensation for the schema 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 clearly indicates this tool provides details about a single course, including role, roster/instructors, timetable, tools, and progress. It distinguishes from the sibling blackboard_courses by focusing on a single course's detail views, though it does not explicitly say 'get a single 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 implies when to use the tool: when you need course-level details such as roster, schedule, tools, or progress. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like blackboard_courses or blackboard_content, nor does it state when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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