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 genuinely new behavioral information by ruling out attempt-result retrieval, but it says nothing about pagination, empty-course behavior, or cross-course aggregation limits for a multi-course query.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the scope limit immediately after. The second sentence is slightly garbled ('read-only coverage only'), a small blemish on an otherwise tight definition.

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 one fully documented parameter, an output schema to explain returns, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description carries the only remaining burden: stating what the tool does not return. It does that. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, where the schema already describes it as 'One or more course ids'. The phrase 'across one or more courses' in the description confirms the array-of-ids semantics but adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('H5P interactive-content activities') with a scope ('across one or more courses'). The resource name is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like list_scorms, list_quizzes, or list_lessons, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Attempt results are not supported by this server' excludes one adjacent use case, which is useful negative guidance. However, there is no positive routing guidance: it does not say when to prefer this over list_course_contents or the other list_* activity tools, leaving the agent to infer selection from the resource name alone.

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