Course content

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: sections contain up to 40 activities, activity intro text is included when present, and file links have your key removed so they are safe to show in chat. That is exactly the kind of output and safety context annotations do not provide.

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 answer is front-loaded with the core question it addresses, then moves through sections, activities, files, input, and an example ask. Every sentence contributes useful selection or expectation-setting information, and the example is brief enough to justify its place.

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 return-shape burden and does so well: sections, activities, intro text, files, and safe links are all explained. Annotations cover safety and openness, and the single required parameter is fully documented. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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 only parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it is the Moodle course ID found via get_my_courses. The description repeats the same source guidance but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 purpose: listing sections and activities within one course, including files, with an explicit framing question. It distinguishes itself from file-opening tools by explaining that links are safe for chat and can still be opened with get_file. An agent can tell what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly establishes the use case: answering what materials are in a course, with course_id sourced from get_my_courses. It also names get_file as the follow-up tool for opening file links. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools such as get_course_page or get_assignments, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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