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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns a preview rather than a final ZIP, that confirmation is required to issue the download link, that video/audio files are auto-excluded due to capacity limits, and that an LMS session is required. This gives an agent a clear model of side effects and limitations.

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 definition front-loads the most important routing gate, then states the alternative flow, output contents, follow-up action, exclusions, and auth requirement in a compact paragraph. It is dense but not bloated; the only minor redundancy is the session note already covered by the 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the preview contains (per-course file list, count, size, excluded items) and what happens next (confirm_lms_material_export → ZIP link). Together with the schema and sibling names, all call-relevant context is present.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including term_id fallback and mcp_session_id optional binding, so the baseline applies. The description's note 'mcp_session_id 필요' adds auth context but is slightly less precise than the schema's optional-session behavior and provides no new parameter semantics.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: collecting all courses' LMS materials in one batch and returning an export preview. It also clearly distinguishes itself from single-course material requests by naming the alternative flow.

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?

It opens with an explicit trigger condition ('only when the user explicitly asks for bulk download of all courses/materials') and an explicit when-not rule for single-course requests, directing agents to get_my_lms_courses → prepare_lms_material_export. It also names confirm_lms_material_export as the next step, so routing is fully specified.

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