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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: no emails or webhooks fire, a rejected call creates nothing but names need not be unique so each success adds another course, and the reading-time gate starts on.

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 dense with no filler sentences; each clause carries routing or behavior information. It is a wall of text for a 27-parameter tool, but nearly 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?

Complete for a large create tool: it covers side effects, defaults with workflow consequences, error/failure behavior, the return shape (name, id, slug) despite no output schema, and the next step. Little an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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%, so the 27 properties are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds some scope knowledge not derivable from the schema (prerequisites, application questions and certificateConfig are deliberately absent here), but the field-level semantics themselves duplicate what the schema already states.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource and immediately scopes it: 'Create a new course on this site: settings only, no lessons yet.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling course_duplicate, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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 explicit when/when-not routing ('to copy an existing course with its lessons, use course_duplicate'), a build-then-publish workflow (create with isVisibleInCatalog:false, publish later with course_update), and directs follow-on work to course_update and course_content_set.

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