My courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond that — only *active* courses are returned, implying concluded/inactive courses are excluded — plus the fact that IDs are exposed for reuse. It says nothing about authentication requirements or whether the list is paginated, so it clears the annotation-lowered bar without being rich.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the workflow hint, then an example. The example is mildly redundant with the already-explicit purpose, but it costs little and disambiguates 'this term' phrasing.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back (courses plus their IDs), which courses count ('active'), and what to do with the result. Only the detailed shape of each returned course entry is unspecified, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no filtering input is needed and that narrowing happens downstream via course ID in sibling tools, which is the only 'parameter-like' semantics that matters here.

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 — 'List your active Canvas courses with their Canvas course IDs' — which is unmistakable against siblings like get_todo or get_announcements. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or claim a unique niche, but the 'my courses' discovery role is obvious from the return value it promises.

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?

Gives clear operating context: this is the entry point, and the returned course ID/name is the handle to feed into the other tools. The sample question anchors the intended use. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., 'do not use to get grades or content — call the course-specific tools'), so it's not a full 5.

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