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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape (fields returned, preview/video flags), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about pagination, ordering of modules/lessons, or depth limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the field list is compact. The trailing enumeration is slightly run-on but each item carries information an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the safety profile is handled by annotations. The missing piece is the relationship to sibling retrieval tools, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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' parameter is documented in the schema as an id from list_courses or a title. The description adds no format, resolution, or matching behavior for that parameter, 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 and resource ('Get a course outline') and enumerates the returned contents (modules, lessons, type, duration, video flag, preview flag, links), which distinguishes it implicitly from get_lesson (single lesson) and list_courses (catalog). It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to alternatives such as get_lesson for a single lesson or list_courses for discovery. An agent must infer the selection condition from the sibling names alone.

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