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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add extra behavior. It explains that drafts are included, how drafts differ via is_published, and that students only see published courses, which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers output fields, usage order, and a meaningful distinction between drafts and published courses.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, why it should be called first, and how to interpret the is_published field. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and use this tool correctly.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the output (course names, publication status, counts, course numbers) even though it does not need to explain 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 clearly states the tool lists all school courses including drafts, with name, publication status, and module/lesson counts. It also distinguishes this from other course-related tools by explaining it returns course numbers used by other requests, which is a specific and useful differentiation.

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 says to call this tool first to learn course numbers for subsequent requests, giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'call first' guidance and mention of student-visible published courses provide strong situational guidance.

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