Syllabus

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 one useful behavioral detail — HTML is removed from the output — but says nothing about what happens when a course has no syllabus or about rate limits, leaving a modest 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?

Two short sentences plus an example, with the core action front-loaded. The quoted example is slightly redundant with the sentence before it, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract and the HTML-stripping behavior. A note on empty-syllabus behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so the single parameter's dual ID/name semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates that course_id accepts an ID or a name, adding no format or disambiguation detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns the syllabus text for one Canvas course, with HTML stripped. That is more precise than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the potentially overlapping sibling get_course_content, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 example question ("What does the Canvas syllabus say about grading in Scripting?") implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_course_content) for broader course material.

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