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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: modules are in order, lessons are in order, each lesson includes type/duration/mandatory flag, and module final tests are named by number. It also discloses what is NOT included, preventing false expectations.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the core behavior, ordering guarantees, and cross-references to sibling tools. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the return shape: ordered modules, ordered lessons with relevant metadata, and the naming convention for final tests. It also tells the agent where to go for related content, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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 0% and the description never explains course_id. It does not say how to obtain it, what format is expected beyond the schema's integer type, or that it selects which course to fetch. The parameter is simple, but the description provides no explicit guidance to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: one complete course with modules and lessons in order, including lesson type, duration, and mandatory flag. It also distinguishes itself from get_test and get_lesson by naming what those tools cover instead.

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 explicitly routes to get_lesson for lesson text and get_test for module test questions, making the boundaries between sibling tools clear. It also implies the appropriate use case: retrieving the full structural skeleton of a single course.

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