get_course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the 'by Course ID' clarifies the key parameter. Every word contributes to the meaning, so it is optimally concise.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not disclose what 'detailed information' includes, whether it returns the same fields as list_courses, or any potential restrictions. Given the lack of annotations, the description could be more complete, but the core action and required input are clear.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'courseId', so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds 'detailed information' but does not elaborate on the parameter format or any constraints beyond what the schema states. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('detailed information about a specific course'), and the distinguishing key ('by Course ID'). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_courses and get_coursework by specifying the resource and the ID-based lookup, so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.

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 implies usage when you have a course ID and need detailed info, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't state that list_courses should be used when you don't have an ID. The guidance is implied but not explicit, so it's adequate but not strong.

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