get_course_basket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it requires login, and it queries the programme catalogue rather than the caller's enrolment records, which shapes expectations about which courses can be returned.

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 purpose, then input forms, then scope caveat, then auth note. No filler and nothing repeated.

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 carries the return burden and does so: basket name, credits and completion state are all named. Input forms, scope (catalogue not personal records) and login requirement are covered, leaving nothing an agent needs 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% and the single parameter is already exemplified there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning: a title fragment matches potentially many catalogue courses, so 'get back every matching catalogue course' clarifies the partial-match, multi-result nature of the lookup rather than the one-code-one-result assumption.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Which curriculum basket a course belongs to') and immediately illustrates both accepted input forms. A reader can distinguish it from the plural sibling get_curriculum_baskets (which lists baskets) without opening either 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: 'Works for courses you have never taken — it reads the programme catalogue, not your records,' which tells the agent this is catalogue lookup rather than a personal-record query. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative tools (get_curriculum_baskets, get_curriculum_progress) or state when not to use it.

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