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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context about what the payload contains (sections, drip-feed settings, activity types, ids), but says nothing about pagination, nesting depth, or whether large courses are truncated, and the endpoint notation is informational rather than behavioral.

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?

One front-loaded sentence enumerating the important return contents, plus a short API mapping. No filler, though the trailing 'LearnWorlds: GET /v2/courses/{id}/contents' is largely redundant with the name and schema.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what entity is fetched, what the response is composed of, and that ids are included. Only error/empty-course behavior and response size characteristics are left unaddressed.

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 100% and course_id is documented in the schema as the course slug with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit {id} in the endpoint path; baseline 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 names a specific resource and its granularity: the course outline with sections (drip-feed settings) and the learning activities (videos, PDFs, SCORM, assessments, certificates) plus their ids. That granularity clearly separates it from siblings like learnworlds_get_course (metadata) and learnworlds_list_courses, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the call to make when it needs the structure of one course. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. you need a known course_id/slug), and no named alternative such as get_course for metadata.

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