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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful scope detail — that it enumerates sections, drip-feed settings, and activity types with ids — but says nothing about response size, pagination, or ordering, which matters for a nested content tree.

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 that names the resource and enumerates its contents, followed by a compact endpoint reference. Efficient, with only the API route arguably redundant given structured metadata elsewhere.

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 must convey return shape, and it does reasonably well by enumerating sections, activities, and ids. It omits any note on nesting depth or volume, but for a straightforward read tool this is largely 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 100% and the single course_id parameter is fully documented there, including the slug format example. The description adds nothing beyond the schema regarding parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the specific resource returned — the course outline with sections (drip-feed settings) and learning activities (videos, PDFs, SCORM, assessments, certificates) plus their ids. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like learnworlds_get_course (metadata) or learnworlds_get_course_analytics (metrics), though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 implied: call this to retrieve a course's structural outline. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to prefer for a lighter-weight course fetch, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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