select_course_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It does not disclose whether selection navigates the browser, whether it is idempotent, what happens with a stale or non-'actual' selector, or what the selection returns beyond the existence of an output schema.

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?

One short sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though part of that brevity comes from omitting information rather than from tight editing.

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?

With zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no title, the description is the only prose the agent gets, and it leaves out the observation prerequisite, selector provenance, and failure behavior. The output schema covers return values, but everything else an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'selector' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by specifying the selector is a 'dct selector' and must be the 'actual' one (i.e., taken from observation rather than fabricated), but it gives no format, example, or source tool for obtaining it.

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 ('select') and a specific resource ('one observed video/quiz/learning-objective card'), so the agent knows the operation is a single-card selection over already-observed course content. It does not name a sibling or explain how selection differs from the many other course/exam inspection tools, but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 word 'observed' implies a prerequisite (a prior observe_course_browser / inspect_course step must have produced the cards), but this is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no statement about what happens when no card matches, and no guidance on which observation tool produces valid selectors.

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