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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—nothing about scope, freshness, output shape, or whether it lists all courses versus a filtered set.

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 a single sentence fragment with no front-loaded action or scope. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, leaving the agent to infer the core operation from the tool name and title.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns—for example, a list of teaching courses and pedagogical indicators. Instead it leaves the return values, scope, and relationship to sibling teaching tools completely implicit, which is inadequate for an agent selecting among many list/get tools.

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 are zero input parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and this description neither helps nor harms that dimension.

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 noun fragment, "Formations et indicateurs pédagogiques," that names a domain but does not state the action (listing) or what is being returned. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_teaching_course or download_teaching_file; the title carries the only explicit "List" wording.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related teaching tools like get_teaching_course, download_teaching_file, enroll_student, or reorder_course. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is a broad listing operation rather than a detail fetch.

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