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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly indicates a read operation ('Return'), describes the response content (courses with sort_order, is_required, unlock_after_course_id), and adds semantic context by explaining 'unlock_after_course_id' as prerequisite gating. This goes beyond just saying 'list courses' and gives useful behavioral insight.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word adds value, efficiently conveying purpose, returned fields, and a key concept (prerequisite gating) without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It stops short of detailing return format (e.g., array vs. object) or error behavior, but for a straightforward list tool, this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Though it doesn't explicitly state 'track_id is the track's identifier,' the phrase 'of a track' makes the single parameter's role clear. It adds conceptual meaning about the parameter's use that the bare UUID schema does not provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('ordered curriculum of a track') with clarifying details about the included fields (sort_order, is_required, unlock_after_course_id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_courses (all courses) and get_track (track details).

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 phrase 'ordered curriculum of a track' provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you need the courses belonging to a specific track in order. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the track-specific wording makes the use case obvious.

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