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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it discloses that includeConfig requires courses:write and that a read-only connection gets an error rather than silently missing fields — a non-obvious failure mode. It also documents the return shape (course object vs {course, config}) and that a course not on the site is a not-found error, none of which the annotations provide.

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 the core verb and resource, then layers the includeConfig branch, sibling routing, return shape, and error mode in dense, non-redundant sentences. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, conditional parameter behavior, permissions, failure modes, return shape, and sibling alternatives. With no output schema, the description compensates by describing exact return shapes, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both id and includeConfig in detail, including field lists and permission requirements. The description repeats the includeConfig semantics without adding format or syntax beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one course's settings record by id') and pins down exactly which representation is returned by equating it with the course_list object's fields. It also distinguishes itself from course_content_get and fetch by naming both siblings and their distinct purposes.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use course_content_get for lessons, use fetch for a citable plain-text summary with public URL. It also states when to add includeConfig and what permission that branch requires, so the agent knows the conditional path.

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