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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the Scale plan requirement and the fact that the zip is base64-encoded, plus the existence of a streaming alternative. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no wasted words: the main behavior, output format, streaming alternative, and plan requirement are each addressed in a front-loaded, direct manner. The description earns its place without 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 annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all non-obvious facts an agent needs: the plan requirement, the bulk-migration recommendation, and the base64 zip format. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, but none are needed since courseId, track, locale, and version already have clear descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Builds' with the resource 'SCORM package for a course' and clearly states the output format (.zip base64-encoded). This differentiates it from siblings like import_scorm and gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 explicitly provides a when-not condition: for bulk migration, prefer GET /api/v1/courses/:id/scorm, which streams the zip instead. It names the alternative and the reason to choose it, so an agent can correctly route between the two without further inference.

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