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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('List of courses with subject, grade, name, and URL') and the scope (K-12, all available courses). No contradictions with annotations exist, and the added behavioral detail is useful without being redundant.

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 concise and effectively front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. It includes a clear usage hint, a compact list of args, and a return description. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the structure (intro, when-to-use, args, returns) makes it easy to scan.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly specifies the return fields (subject, grade, name, URL). It also clarifies the tool's scope (K-12 database, all courses) and its role in the workflow (discovery before querying specific data). Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params) and strong annotations, the description fully covers necessary context.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, providing both `subject` enum values and `grade` range with K/1-12 semantics. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats the schema information without adding new details like examples, default behavior, or filtering semantics. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('List all available courses') with a defined resource ('BC curriculum database (K-12)') and scope ('all available courses'). It positions itself as a discovery tool separate from sibling tools like get_course_curriculum or search_curriculum, which are implied as follow-up actions ('before querying specific curriculum data').

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to discover what courses are available before querying specific curriculum data.' This gives clear when-to-use context and implies that other sibling tools are for querying specific curriculum data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use this tool versus those alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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