list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing that the response is an envelope `{ coursesForUser: CourseSummary[] }` rather than a bare array, which is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot express.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then the return-shape caveat, with no filler. The trailing-slash note is slightly pedantic but arguably useful for an agent replicating the call.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so precisely via the envelope shape. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only pagination/empty-result behavior is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for.

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 names the exact upstream endpoint (`/web-gateway/course/owner/`) and, combined with the tool name and return shape (`coursesForUser`), makes it clear this lists the user's own courses. It does not explicitly contrast with single-course readers like get_course, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling list that get_course handles a single course while list_courses enumerates them; the description itself offers no routing help.

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