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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation by retrieving codes, but it does not disclose what happens if the course_code is invalid, whether there are any side effects, or how results are structured. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that convey the core purpose and a use case without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat lacking. It explains the purpose and provides a use case, but it does not describe the return format or handle edge cases. For a simple lookup tool, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% (no descriptions for parameters). The description adds meaning by specifying that course_code is a 'bare' NTNU course code (without version suffix) and gives an example. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could be more detailed about format or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves DBH-versioned course codes for a bare NTNU course code, with an example. It distinguishes from siblings like get_course_info by focusing on version codes, though it does not explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

The description suggests using the tool when grade lookups come back empty, providing one use case. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios, leaving the agent without clear guidance.

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