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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: media fields (videoId, pdfUrl) are conditionally returned based on free-preview status or enrollment plus a valid AI key, and locked lessons yield teasers only. It does not say what happens on an unpublished/unknown courseId or whether missing enrollment errors or degrades.

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 core purpose and then the media-gating caveat; no filler. Slightly dense in the second sentence but every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the conditional shape of media fields, which is the main return-value ambiguity. However the role of farmId, the error/teaser behavior for unpublished courses, and the enrollment/key prerequisites are left implicit, leaving gaps for a tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema.

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 carries the full burden for both parameters, yet it never explains what farmId is for or when it must be supplied, nor the expected format of courseId. The phrase 'enrolled/tutor farms with a valid AI key' hints at farm context but does not tie it to the farmId parameter.

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 ('Get one published Academy course with modules/lessons metadata'), and the singular 'one' plus 'published' scoping cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_academy_courses. An agent can pick between the two 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?

The singular 'Get one' implies this is the detail view used when a specific courseId is known, versus listing all courses, but no alternative is ever named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if the course is unpublished). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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