jcourse_get_course_review_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that output is per-semester counts and averages; it says nothing about how empty semesters or missing scores are handled, or about result ordering/limits.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the aggregation verb and granularity, with zero filler. It is terse to the point of omitting caveats, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be restated, and the single parameter is fully described in the schema. For a simple read-only aggregation over one ID, the description plus structured fields cover what an agent needs to select and call it.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents course_id as a positive integer platform object ID. The description only implies that the ID refers to the course being summarized, adding no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 (汇总/aggregate) and resource (某门课程的评价) plus the granularity (按学期) and the metrics produced (数量与平均分). This clearly separates it from jcourse_list_course_reviews, which returns individual reviews, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: '汇总' signals aggregation, so an agent can infer this is for trend/summary questions rather than browsing reviews. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as list_course_reviews.

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