List Announcements

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that attachments are included and by enumerating the exact returned fields, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and uses a clear Args/Returns structure, making it easy to scan. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but the overall length is appropriate and there is no unnecessary prose.

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 has one required parameter and simple optional parameters, and the description covers the course scope, limit behavior, response format, and the complete set of returned fields. With no output schema present, the explicit Returns list is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 67%, and the description lists all three parameters but mostly restates the schema. It repeats course_id as 'Course ID', limit's default/range, and response_format's enum/meaning, adding no deeper semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 opens with 'List announcements posted to a course stream, including any attachments,' which clearly names the verb, resource, and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools by resource type, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from tools like classroom_list_coursework or classroom_list_topics.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need announcements from a course stream, especially with attachments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative sibling list tools, so the agent must infer selection from the resource name.

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