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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: this server only supports listing, not reading or adding entries, which prevents an agent from assuming entry-level access after calling it.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence is slightly redundant in phrasing ('read-only coverage only') but earns its place by flagging the capability limitation.

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 an output schema present and the sole parameter fully documented in the schema, the description needs only to state purpose and scope limits, which it does. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though a note on multi-course behavior (e.g. per-course grouping) would be nice.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter (course_ids), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no syntax, cardinality, or cross-course semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List Glossary activities') and scope ('across one or more courses'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many list_* siblings by resource type. It does not explicitly differentiate from broader tools like get_course_contents that might also surface glossary items, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies (listing) and explicitly rules out entry reading/adding, which helps selection. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for entry-level access, so it is not fully explicit routing.

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