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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses that includeConfig requires courses:write and that a read-only connection gets an error rather than silently missing fields. It also describes return shapes and not-found behavior, which are valuable behavioral details.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, then alternatives and return behavior. Every sentence adds useful routing or behavioral information without waste.

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 explains both possible return forms, including the includeConfig variant, and the not-found error case. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool 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 both parameters are already documented clearly in the schema. The description reinforces includeConfig's effect and adds the read-only error behavior, but most parameter meaning is already present in the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving one course's settings record by id, and explicitly says it returns the same course object as course_list with named fields. It also distinguishes this from course_content_get for lessons and fetch for a citable summary.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use course_content_get for lessons and fetch for a plain-text summary with public URL. It also states when and why to pass includeConfig, including the permission requirement and read-only connection error.

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