Course Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant; the real value is the disclosure of what the check aggregates (grade, missing/ungraded work, deadlines, unread discussions). No gaps or surprises are left for a read operation, though return shape/size is unstated.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and returns, the second handles the scope boundary. No filler or restated title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly which data categories come back, which is what an agent needs to decide whether this single call suffices. Annotations cover safety, schema covers the lone parameter — nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the single course_id parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the 'get it from list_courses' provenance hint. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get a full status check') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one course'), with the returned facets enumerated: grade, missing/ungraded work, deadlines, unread discussions. It also names the sibling it is not (semester_snapshot), so an agent can separate it from the aggregate tools without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes multi-course queries to semester_snapshot, which gives a clear use-when-else signal. It stops short of mentioning other adjacent siblings (get_week_ahead, deadline_conflict_check, get_course_grade_breakdown) that could also serve overlapping needs, so the routing is good but not exhaustive.

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