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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive operation; the description adds ordering, hidden-course inclusion, exact returned fields, enrollment counting semantics, and paging behavior. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 scope is front-loaded, followed by alternatives, return shape, and paging. Despite being dense, every sentence carries decision-relevant information and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the returned array and key fields. It also covers scope, exclusions, alternatives, and paging, leaving no major ambiguity for calling 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 `limit` and `offset` are already documented. The description still adds useful paging semantics by explaining how to advance `offset` and when to stop.

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: list every course on the site, with scope clarified as full inventory including hidden and slugless courses. It also distinguishes itself from `search` and `course_get`, so an agent can select it without opening another schema.

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 says it has no keyword filter and returns no page URLs, then names `search` for keyword/public-URL lookup and `course_get` for one course record. Paging guidance is also given.

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