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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: ordering guarantees for sections and lessons, the meaning of the published and public preview flags, and the authentication requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It omits pagination or size behavior for large courses.

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?

Front-loaded and reasonably short, but the first sentence is essentially restated by the second ('sections in order... lessons inside each section in order' and the flags appear twice). One of those sentences could be dropped without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: sections, ordered lessons, and two per-lesson flags, plus the auth requirement. It does not mention pagination or whether lesson titles/IDs are included, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Course ID from list_courses'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Returns the Curriculum tab of one course: sections in order, and the lessons inside each section in order') and names the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from lesson-level siblings by pointing to get_lesson/update_lesson/publish_lesson for individual lessons, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives clear context for use and a concrete follow-on workflow: lesson_id values from this call feed get_lesson, update_lesson and publish_lesson. It does not state any when-not conditions or an alternative tool for retrieving course structure, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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