list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by disclosing pagination behavior (single page, has_more/next_cursor), the local failure mode when the OAuth scope is missing, and the case-insensitive partial match for filter_title. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, follows with a critical pagination warning, then parameter detail, and finally the scope requirement. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The formatting uses line breaks for readability, making it easy to scan.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essential operational aspects: pagination handling, filter behavior, and authentication scope. Minor omissions such as explicit page_size effect and sort order do not prevent correct usage. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool effectively.

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 must compensate. It explains filter_title as a case-insensitive partial match, which is valuable. It also implies page_cursor usage via the pagination discussion ('call again with next_cursor'), but does not explicitly link page_cursor to next_cursor or define the effect of page_size. The description partially compensates but leaves page_size semantics undocumented, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 statement - 'List the organization's non-deleted, non-draft courses' - which clearly identifies the action, resource, and filtering criteria. This is distinct from sibling tools (check_access, describe_capabilities, report_a_problem) which all serve different purposes. No ambiguity remains about 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 provides explicit guidance on pagination: it returns one page, instructs the agent to check `has_more` and call again with `next_cursor` before drawing conclusions. It also states the OAuth scope requirement. It does not mention alternatives, but given the unrelated sibling tools, such exclusions are unnecessary. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions.

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