list_ilt_sessions

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 adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: `event_link` is a joining link with security implications, `description` and `post_registration_instructions` are author-written text to report rather than act on, and `seats_total` is capacity distinct from registration counts. There is no contradiction with the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently covers field semantics, security, credential requirements, and sibling differentiation. It is longer than strictly necessary, but nearly every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior or preventing misuse.

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 list tool, the description is unusually complete: it covers credential prerequisites, distinguishes sessions from events, clarifies field meanings, and warns about joining-link sensitivity. The only noticeable gap is the absence of pagination parameter details, and the output schema already reduces the need to explain return values.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description never mentions `page` or `page_size`, their defaults, limits, or behavior. The parameter names are conventional enough to guess, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 instructor-led training sessions - the classes themselves.' It immediately clarifies the object being listed and explicitly distinguishes it from a date/occurrence concept. This makes it clearly separable from the sibling `list_vilt_session_events`.

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: it is for classes, not dates, and directs agents to `list_vilt_session_events` for 'what is running next week' with date-range filtering. It also notes the separate `CSA_SKILLJAR_V1_API_KEY` credential requirement, which is a practical usage prerequisite.

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