My courses

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 real behavioral detail beyond that: the list is limited to 'active' classes, implying archived/inactive courses are excluded. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how 'active' is determined, so the added context is modest.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 zero-parameter read tool with readOnly/openWorld annotations, this is sufficient: the description covers what is returned (courses plus IDs), the scope (active), and the reason to call it. No output schema exists, but the return content is characterized well enough for correct invocation.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'with their IDs' usefully describes the payload shape rather than any input.

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 ('List') plus the exact resource ('the student's active Google Classroom classes') and the key returned field ('their IDs'). This is clearly separable from siblings like get_assignments, get_my_grades, or get_course_materials, which operate on content within courses rather than the course roster itself.

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 a concrete trigger ('What classes am I in?') and a downstream reason to call it ('needs a course ID to pass to another tool'), which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, so it lands just below the top band.

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