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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only a hint that the response includes students, progressions, submissions and corrections — useful for anticipating payload size, but it says nothing about permissions, scoping, or failures for a non-existent id.

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?

It is a single short clause with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a comma-separated content list with no verb or structure. Brevity here is the problem, not a virtue.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation covering response content, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return shape — and it does so only as a vague content list. Combined with an undocumented required id parameter, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool.

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 single 'id' parameter is undocumented everywhere. The description never mentions the identifier or what kind of course id it expects (catalogue id, enrolment id, slug), leaving the agent to guess despite the schema requiring it.

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 is a bare noun phrase ('Programme complet, élèves, progressions, remises et corrections') that lists the course's contents but never states a verb or the act of retrieving. It leaks identity from the tool name rather than defining the tool, and it gives no basis for distinguishing this from siblings such as list_teaching_courses or download_teaching_file.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of prerequisites, no condition for choosing this over list_teaching_courses (which presumably enumerates courses) or download_teaching_file. An agent must infer from the name alone that this fetches one course by id.

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