list_published_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description goes well beyond them. It discloses that unpublishing only sets live to false rather than deleting rows, that unfiltered lists include unreachable courses, and that the OAuth scope published-courses:read is required. This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured 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 concise but information-dense, with each paragraph earning its place: core semantics, pagination, default filtering behavior, include syntax, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear formatting for scannability.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly: the join concept, default live/unpublished behavior, pagination protocol, include values, and required OAuth scope. No critical operational detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains include ('comma-separated list; course and domain are supported'), filter_live (returns only live publications), and the page_cursor/has_more relationship. It does not explicitly explain filter_course, filter_domain, page_size, or page_cursor by name, though their roles are inferable from context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List every course-to-domain publication in the organization.' It clarifies the join semantics between course and domain, distinguishing published courses from plain courses. This makes it clearly separate from sibling tools like list_courses or get_published_course.

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 clear context on default behavior and when to use filters: 'BOTH LIVE AND UNPUBLISHED rows are returned by default' and 'Pass filter_live=true for the ones actually on air.' It also explains pagination usage with has_more and next_cursor. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is strong.

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