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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: lesson slides are excluded from the response, Australian prices include GST, Fundamentals is free, and leadership courses share a US$300 group price. It repeats 'this tool only reads' (redundant but consistent) and says nothing about error behavior for an unknown slug.

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?

Return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scoping caveats and pricing rules. The pricing sentences are terse and slightly telegraphic ('Each leadership course is part of the US$300 group'), but each carries information an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned shape and flags exclusions and pricing semantics. The only gap is failure behavior for a bad slug, which is minor for a simple read tool.

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% for the single slug parameter, including the format example, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that it takes one slug; the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the public outline and offer for one course slug') and enumerates the returned fields (audience, outcomes, modules, price), which cleanly separates it from list_courses (many courses) and create_checkout_link (purchase). An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one course slug' and the schema note that the slug comes from list_courses, but the description never explicitly says to call list_courses first or that this tool is the wrong choice for browsing. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated in the description itself.

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