Get Mandatory Training courses

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the content is country-specific and must be relayed verbatim with a disclaimer that the tool does not itself determine acceptance.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the key usage instruction. No filler, though the opening clause is slightly awkwardly worded.

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 is simple, an output schema exists so return format need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the verbatim-output instruction and scope caveat — ample for an agent to call and use it correctly.

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 100% for the single 'country' parameter, including the code format and the US default, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only echoes 'for a country' and adds no new parameter-level detail; 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?

The description states precisely what content is returned: pre-authored wording, scoped by country, addressing employer acceptance of online-course certificates. That is clearly distinct from the sibling course-retrieval tools, though the verb is only implied ('give the person this wording') rather than stated as a crisp action.

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?

It gives a clear directive on how to use the output ('give the person this wording as it is') plus a caveat that acceptance is decided by the employer/licensing body. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but context is sufficient for this narrow tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the verbatim-output requirement for employer_acceptance wording and the instruction to redirect enrolment to the url rather than acting.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential identity of the tool and kept to three sentences, each carrying an instruction. The middle enumeration of returned facets is somewhat list-heavy but is not wasted, since it steers what the agent surfaces to the user.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the description supplies the two behavioral rules an agent most needs (verbatim wording, url-based enrolment). Minor gaps remain around error/unknown-slug behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both the slug provenance/example and the country default (United States when omitted). The description restates country-driven pricing and cross-country versions but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource (fetch a single course by slug) with an explicit pointer to where the slug comes from (list_courses), which cleanly separates it from the list sibling. It even enumerates the returned facets, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is for.

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?

It states the input source ('from list_courses') and gives two actionable directives (deliver employer_acceptance wording verbatim, send enrolees to the course url), which is real routing guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer the sibling employer_acceptance tool or what to do if the slug is unknown.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: the pricing model (test and learning free, certificate paid only after passing), that certificate validity varies by country, and that this tool does not enrol anyone (the person enters their own details at the URL). It also specifies the US default when country is omitted and instructs the agent not to shorten employer_acceptance wording.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the returned fields, then flows into operational guidance and the argument default. The country-code enumeration ('US, CA, GB or UK, NZ, and others') partially duplicates the schema, which is the only wasted phrasing.

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?

With an output schema present, the field list does not need to be explained in prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the enrolment flow and country default the structured fields don't convey; only an explicit sibling-routing line 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single optional parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates the expected format and the US-when-omitted default rather than adding new syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List the online CPR, AED and first aid courses ... for a country') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (URL, price, length, validity, summary, audience, employer_acceptance). It is clearly distinguishable from get_course, though it never explicitly frames itself against that sibling.

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?

Implied usage is present: it tells the agent to use a country code and to send enrollees to the course URL. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g. 'for a single course use get_course', 'for the wording alone use employer_acceptance') beyond referencing employer_acceptance wording in passing.

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