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

Annotations already declare readOnly/not-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior: authorName appears only with members:read, versions are never pruned, every save adds one, the first row is the current version, and paging works by raising offset in limit-sized steps. It also discloses the return shape, going beyond the safety profile the annotations carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, and nearly every clause carries actionable detail (return fields, ordering, paging, restoration). Some sentences are long and packed, slightly straining readability but without wasted content.

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 compensates by stating the return object ({courseId, total, count, versions}) and the per-row fields, plus ordering and pagination semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that limit:1 yields the current version number and save time, and that offset should be raised in steps of limit to page backward.

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+resource: lists a course's saved content versions, newest first, metadata only. It enumerates the returned fields and name-checks the sibling (course_content_get) used to read blocks, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools.

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 usage: use it to find an earlier version to inspect or restore, then call course_content_get(version:N); and it states when NOT to use it ('to read the current lessons you do not need it'). Restoration path via course_content_set is also named.

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