Course content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no indication of pagination, ordering, nesting depth of module items, or whether item content is included or requires follow-up calls. Nothing is stated that the annotations and schema don't already imply.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource stated first, followed by the parameter hint and a realistic example. The example earns its place by showing how a user utterance maps to the call; nothing is padded.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and 'modules and module items' is thin — it doesn't say what item types appear (assignments, pages, files, quizzes, subheaders) or that results are nested. For a single-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about return shape.

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% and the course_id description already explains the ID-or-name duality and points to get_my_courses for lookup values. The description restates the same ID-or-name flexibility without adding format examples, disambiguation rules, or failure behavior, so it matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

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 first sentence names the exact resource returned — modules and module items — scoped to a single Canvas course, which separates it from siblings like get_my_courses (course list) and get_assignments (course work). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'Retrieve' or 'List', so the agent must infer the operation from the resource noun, but the intent 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 natural-language example ('Show me the Week 3 module in my Canvas Networking course') gives a concrete usage cue, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Guidance is implied by example rather than stated.

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