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

Annotations already declare this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds authentication context (OAuth bearer or auth_token) and the 'across courses' scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose further behavioral details like pagination or empty-result handling.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary filler. Every word adds meaning.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose and authentication adequately. It doesn't define 'entitlements,' but that is likely domain context and not critical for 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention auth_token and its relationship to OAuth bearer, but it doesn't explain token format, precedence, or how to obtain it. For a single optional parameter with a null default, this is adequate but minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a precise resource ('logged-in account's entitlements across courses'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling listing tools like list_courses or list_artifacts. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to list entitlements for the logged-in account. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, no competing entitlement tool exists among siblings, and the auth method note adds useful context.

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