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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive guarantees. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: LMS login is needed via mcp_session_id, only one active term has defaultTerm=true, and the default term is used when term_id is omitted. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then output contents, then key defaultTerm behavior, then downstream usage, then authentication note. Every sentence earns its place 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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool, the description covers return fields, default-term semantics, downstream usage, and authentication needs. It loses one point because it references get_my_lecture_list, which is not present in the sibling list, and because exact date formats or error behavior are not mentioned — though the latter is minor.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, mcp_session_id, is already well-described in the schema as optional with transport-bound session fallback. The description adds the LMS login requirement, which is mildly useful, but it does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool returns the user's LMS registered term list, with concrete fields (id, name, start/end dates, defaultTerm). It is distinguishable from related get_* tools because it focuses specifically on terms rather than courses, schedules, or dashboard data.

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 gives clear context: it should be used to obtain term IDs, especially the default active term, and those IDs feed into get_my_assignments (and get_my_lecture_list). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it versus siblings, but the downstream usage guidance is strong enough.

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