list_archived_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: archived course IDs are interchangeable with active ones for assignments, modules and files, which changes how the agent can reuse the returned IDs. It says nothing about pagination or result volume.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parenthetical German I/German II example earns its space by making the tutoring scenario concrete. The third sentence about downstream tool compatibility is slightly tangential to 'list' but pays off in usefulness, so the small length cost is justified.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, output schema present, annotations present), and the description covers scope, motivation and downstream compatibility. It omits whether archived results can be empty or how they're ordered, but with an output schema in place those gaps are 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage there is no parameter meaning to add, so the baseline applies. The description doesn't invent parameters or ambiguities, and it correctly frames the tool's only real input as implicit: the authenticated user.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List ... archived courses") and pins the scope to "past-semester (archived)", which contrasts with the active-courses sibling. It stops short of naming list_active_courses or list_all_courses, so an agent must infer the split from the word 'archived' rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

It supplies a concrete when-to-use scenario (tutoring across semesters, e.g. last semester's German I for German II), which is genuine selection guidance. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use rule or named alternative, so the agent still has to decide on its own whether list_active_courses or list_all_courses would be a better fit.

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