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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the return shape by referencing the exact GET endpoint, which is useful behavioral context. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but for a simple public read-detail tool this is sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and return value. It front-loads the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers what the tool does, how to obtain the required slug, and what the response will look like via an endpoint reference. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema only defines slug as a string, giving no explanatory coverage. The description compensates by specifying that slug is the curriculum source's slug and where to obtain it, i.e., from list_courses. This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and provenance.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Get') and a precise object ('individual courses within one curriculum source'). The reference to list_courses also situates it among siblings, making it clear this tool is not for listing sources like list_courses or computing catalog stats.

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 states that the slug comes 'as returned by list_courses', establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow ordering. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to distinguish when this detail tool is appropriate.

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