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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds useful behavioral context: results are grouped by file extension, video/audio are excluded for security/capacity reasons, and the current active term is auto-selected when term_id is omitted. Without an output schema, this return-structure summary is valuable.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose first, then result grouping, exclusions, term default, and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the resource, scope, exclusions, result grouping, term fallback, and auth prerequisite. It could be slightly more explicit about empty-result behavior or limits on the number of courses, but it 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning: course_ids come from get_my_lms_courses, and term_id defaults to the active term. However, it states 'mcp_session_id 필요' (mcp_session_id required) while the schema marks it optional with a fallback, creating a contradictory usage signal.

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 uses a specific verb (조회/retrieve) and an exact resource: weekly learning materials for specified LMS courses, listing common file types and explicitly excluding video/audio. This also distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_all_lms_materials and prepare_lms_material_export, since this is a read-only list operation.

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?

The description provides clear context: it takes course_ids, defaults to the active term when term_id is omitted, and requires an LMS session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the read-only list purpose and explicit exclusion of video/audio imply the boundary.

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