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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine behavioral context by naming the two error states (course_content_unavailable with readable courses, course_not_found) and the contentAvailable gate. However, the long enumeration of return fields largely duplicates the output schema rather than adding behavioral insight, so it sits at an adequate 3.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the middle sentence enumerates every return field (slug, order, title, description, duration, URL, sha256, character length), which the output schema already provides — redundant content that bloats an otherwise tight definition.

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 so return values needn't be explained, yet the tool still covers prerequisites, error states and the consuming sibling. The main gap is that it never contrasts with the similarly named getCourseDetails, leaving the agent to infer which course-level tool to pick.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines slug and its source (listCourses, example 'seo-geo'). The description reinforces the upstream dependency but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('get a course's reading order and the ids for getModuleContent') and immediately distinguishes its output from other course tools by naming the sibling that consumes its ids. The agent can identify this as the module-listing step without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the purpose relative to alternatives (feed ids into getModuleContent) and the precondition that only courses marked contentAvailable in getCatalogManifest have modules. It also documents the fallback path (readable courses returned with course_content_unavailable), leaving nothing to inference.

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