List Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' earns no credit for new information. The description does add one genuinely behavioral detail: the result set includes the caller's own enrolled section, not just a catalog of sections. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what fields a section carries.

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, none wasted, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the usage hint. The 'Read-only' sentence is redundant against the annotations but costs almost nothing.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it returns at a high level and one concrete reason to call it. Missing only result shape/ordering details, which are minor at this complexity.

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 parameter's description already explains that course_id is a numeric string sourced from list_courses. The description only implies the parameter via 'in a course' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('List the sections in a course'), and clarifies what a section is with concrete examples ('lecture or lab sections'). The scope detail ('including the one you are enrolled in') further pins down what comes back. No sibling tool covers sections, so differentiation is not required, but the description also doesn't route against any near-neighbor.

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?

One use case is given — 'Useful for understanding section-specific due-date overrides' — which hints at when an agent would want this. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. list_courses for the parent, list_assignments for due dates), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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