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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the syllabus is a generated artifact that may not exist for every course ("when this tool has one"), and the payload is markdown. It stops short of saying what happens when no syllabus exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return format, followed by value framing and the required parameter. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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, return-value detail is not the description's burden, and the single parameter plus annotations are covered. The only gap is the failure mode when a course has no generated syllabus, which the conditional phrasing hints at but never resolves.

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 single course_id param is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. "Requires course_id" merely restates the schema's required field without adding format, range, or sourcing detail.

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 (return a generated course outline) plus the format (markdown), which clearly separates it from siblings like read-artifact or get-course-mastery. It does not name an alternative sibling, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to identify the right tool.

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?

"This is the best grounding for high-quality study guidance" implies a usage context (study/learning tasks) but never states when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent needs. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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