Course page

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a 5-page cap, 20000-character per-page limit, the '[truncated]' marker, and the exclusion of images/embedded media. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs to interpret output correctly.

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?

An effective lead sentence answers the core question, followed by scope, limits, inputs, and an example in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries distinct information (limits, exclusions, parameter sourcing) with no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return form (plain text, HTML stripped, truncation marker, no media) and the pagination-like cap, so the agent knows what it will get. Nothing needed for correct invocation is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds a little genuine meaning: page_name is a 'word or phrase from the page title' used to pick one page, and omitting it reads the first pages. It doesn't add format/syntax detail beyond the schema, so it stays just above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Reads the Page activities of one course... returns their text') and scopes it to pages listed as 'page' in get_course_content, distinguishing it from get_file and get_course_content. An agent can tell immediately what this 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 explicitly states how to source course_id ('the ID from get_my_courses'), how page_name selects one page versus reading the first pages when omitted, and pairs it with a concrete invocation example ('Read the Week 2 reading page in Networking Basics'). Alternative behavior (omitting page_name) is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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