get_course

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it requires the courses:read OAuth scope, warns that the id is obfuscated and not a title, and explains edge-case handling (malformed, cross-organization, soft-deleted, or draft ids are reported as not found). This gives the agent concrete information about auth requirements and failure modes.

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?

Four sentences with each earning its place: the core action, the added value over alternatives, the explicit exclusion of lessons with a pointer to the correct tool, and critical id/auth/error context. The most important information is front-loaded, and the description remains tight without redundancy.

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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what the tool returns, what it does not return, the exact format and semantics of the id, the required OAuth scope, and how failures are reported. The presence of an output schema covers return-field details, so nothing necessary 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?

The schema provides only a bare string type for 'id' with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must carry the meaning. It does so explicitly: 'id is the obfuscated Skilljar course id, not a title.' This tells the agent exactly what value to supply and prevents common mistakes like passing a course title or human-readable identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one course by its Skilljar id, with its full attributes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from list_courses by stating it returns more detailed attributes and is for courses you have already located. This unambiguous scoping makes it easy for an agent to know exactly what this tool does.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer this when you need detail about a course you have already located.' It also tells the agent what not to use it for and points to the correct alternative: 'It does NOT return the course's lessons; use list_lessons with filter_course_id for those.' No ambiguity remains about choosing between this and related tools.

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