list_course_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires a separate credential 'CSA_SKILLJAR_V1_API_KEY', scopes the call to one domain, and clarifies the non-sequential nature of series. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core definition and the key exclusion ('NOT sequences'). The series-vs-path explanation is longer but earns its place because it prevents a common routing mistake. The published_course_count sentence is slightly tangential to input parameters but still clarifies the result concept.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's main risk: confusing series with paths. It supplies auth requirements, domain scoping, and semantic definition, while annotations cover the read-only safety profile and output schema exists for return values. The main minor gap is lack of pagination behavior for page/page_size, but that is standard and low-risk.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It does explain domain_name as 'the hostname' and mentions published_course_count as the group size, though that appears to be output rather than input. However, page and page_size are left to inference from their names and default null values; the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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: 'List course series on one domain'. It clearly distinguishes series from paths, which are the closest sibling concept, and explicitly states that a series is a catalog grouping, not a sequence. An agent can tell this apart from list_paths and list_courses 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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: if the user asks about progress through a group, use paths; if they ask about catalog arrangement, use series. It names the path as the confusing alternative and explains why the two are different. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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