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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond them: it discloses the auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'), the return scope (published and draft), and clarifies that students/rating are Udemy's displayed figures rather than derived values.

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-loads what the tool returns and is mostly efficient. The clause 'Students and rating are the numbers Udemy shows for the course' is somewhat redundant with the earlier field list, and the closing auth note could be tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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, single-param list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the auth prerequisite. An agent has enough to call it and to chain course_id into other endpoints; only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.

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% for the single 'status' param, so the schema already documents it. The description's mention of 'published and draft' loosely relates to the filter but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 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 specific verb+resource ('List... Courses you teach') plus the exact fields returned (status, price, students, rating, URL) and scope ('every course on your instructor account, published and draft'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_course_performance, get_revenue_report, and list_coupons.

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 concrete downstream guidance: 'Use course_id from each item as the parameter of the other endpoints,' framing this as the discovery/listing step. It does not explicitly name a sibling to prefer or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not rule.

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