Get Course Progress

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 redundant rather than additive. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the failure mode for courses lacking module completion requirements and a preview of the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose and return fields first, safety hint second, error condition last. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully names the return values and the primary error case, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It stops short of describing the shape of 'next item' or what happens for users not enrolled, minor gaps for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that course_id is a numeric string sourced from list_courses. The description contributes nothing additional 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get your module completion progress in a course') and enumerates the concrete payload ('requirements met, total requirements and next item'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_module, list_modules or mark_module_item_done without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-not condition — 'Returns an error for courses without module completion requirements' — so an agent knows a failure here is expected rather than a bug. It does not name alternatives (e.g. get_module_item_sequence or list_modules) for courses without completion requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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