Get Course Pace

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds a real behavioral fact beyond them: the call fails when the course is not using pacing. No mention of what a partially-configured pacing plan returns, which keeps it off a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return content and failure mode. No filler.

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 correctly specifies what is returned (per-module suggested days plus resulting dates) and the error condition, so an agent knows what to expect. It stops short of describing the shape of the pacing payload, a minor gap for a single-parameter read.

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 is already documented with a pointer to list_courses, so the description adds no parameter-level information. 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+resource (pacing plan for a self-paced course) with concrete content enumerated: suggested days per module and resulting dates. No sibling tool touches course pacing, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

States the precondition that pacing must be enabled (error otherwise), which routes agents away from calling it on non-paced courses. It does not name an alternative tool for the non-paced case, but no sibling offers an alternative.

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