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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: no login needed, the personalized behavior for logged-in users (authored courses marked `mine` with visibility), and the return of `course` id. It also communicates that the tool is safe to call without login. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value: usage guidance, course structure reference, return value, and a special case. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, the output's role in the workflow, and the edge case for authenticated users. All essential context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly is included.

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?

The input schema has only one optional param (auth_token) with 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies its purpose: 'no login needed' implies the default behavior, and 'For a logged-in learner this also includes courses THEY authored' explains what happens when auth_token is provided. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 explicitly states 'List every available Ripostiq course' with the specific verb 'list' and resource 'courses.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_artifacts and list_interviews by clarifying it is the entry point for browsing or starting learning, and mentions that it returns the `course` id for use with other tools.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST when a user wants to browse or start learning.' It also describes the follow-up flow via begin_course(course) → teach_section, and notes the special case for logged-in learners where authored courses are included, providing clear context for when to use this tool.

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