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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context about the scope of returned data (assessment method, certificate issue timing and currency period), which tells the agent what questions this call can answer.

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?

Three tight sentences with the payload summary front-loaded, then the use case, then the parameter hint. No filler, no repetition of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 structure need not be spelled out, yet the description still conveys the semantic content of the response. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that the value is the id obtained from list_courses and that a unit code such as HLTAID011 is also accepted. That resolves the ambiguity of an undocumented identifier format.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full details for one course') and then enumerates the exact payload (coverage, assessment, pre-course work, what to bring, certificate issuance and currency). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_courses, which only lists courses rather than detailing one.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('answer whether a course meets a workplace or childcare requirement') and tells the agent where the key input comes from ('course is the id from list_courses'). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool for adjacent needs (e.g. search_sessions for scheduling), so it falls short of a full routing statement.

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