compare_courses

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world status, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that — and it does: it discloses partial-failure semantics ('reports individual source failures without inventing data'), which tells the agent how mixed results look. It does not say whether failures surface as errors or partially-populated output.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the capability and the batch limit front-loaded and the failure-handling caveat second.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin: it never explains campus/session scoping or what a comparison result contains. Annotations and the safe read profile carry part of the burden, but an agent still lacks guidance on the optional parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only restates the maxItems bound ('up to five'). The campus enum (UBCV/UBCO), the yearSession format, and the subject/course code formats are left entirely to the schema patterns with no explanation in prose.

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 ('Compare ... courses') with a concrete batch bound ('up to five') and named data sources (official descriptions, historical grades). That batch framing implicitly separates it from single-course siblings like get_course and get_course_grades, but 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?

The use case (comparing several courses at once) is implied by the verb and the 2-5 course bound, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_courses or get_course_grades for a single lookup.

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