list_courses

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden alone. It does convey scope ('this semester') and the shape of the returned records, which is useful, but it never states that the call is a read-only operation, whether a login/session is required, or whether the list can be empty.

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 short sentence with the core concept front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical field list earns its place by telling the agent what comes back, though the sentence could be marginally tighter.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: which records are returned, under what time scope, and which fields each record holds. Missing only minor operational detail such as ordering or empty-result behavior.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds only the implicit scoping ('this semester') that determines what the empty-argument call returns.

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 a specific resource (the student's IEULearn courses for the current semester) and enumerates the returned fields (course code, name, IEULearn number), so an agent can distinguish it from list_assignments and list_exams. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from course_content, which is the nearest conceptual sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'this semester'; there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over course_content or the other list_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. For a zero-parameter list tool the risk of misuse is low, but the routing guidance is left to inference.

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