get_curriculum_baskets

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. It does add two things beyond the structured data: the authentication requirement ('Requires login') and the data-provenance caveat that vtopMarkedCompleted is VTOP's own marking reported verbatim, which prevents the agent from treating it as a computed value.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the routing alternative, then two short operational flags. The field enumeration in sentence one is long but earned, since there is no output schema to document the return shape. No filler or restated platitudes.

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 burden of describing returns and it does so concretely, plus it flags the login prerequisite. It stops short of mentioning pagination, volume, or failure behaviour, which an agent calling a full programme-wide curriculum query would benefit from knowing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description instead spends its budget on describing the returned shape, which is the right trade for a parameterless query tool.

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 resource ('Programme curriculum baskets') and enumerates exactly what each category/course row contains (code, title, type, version, L/T/P/J, credits), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It distinguishes itself from one near-neighbour by naming get_pending_subjects, but never addresses the confusingly similar sibling get_course_basket, which is the most likely source of mis-selection.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: use get_pending_subjects when you want completed-vs-left rather than the raw baskets. That gives a clear condition plus an alternative. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this over get_course_basket, leaving the closest sibling unresolved.

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