get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld. The description adds real context beyond them: the payload is static catalog prose, not live offering data and not eligibility data — an important and non-obvious distinction. It stops short of describing return shape or whether catalog text can be stale.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the positive capability front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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?

The scope caveat covers the biggest failure mode (treating catalog text as a current-offering check), but with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves unclear what the returned text contains (prerequisites, credits, description) and how campus affects results. Adequate but with clear gaps for a three-parameter, open-world 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the three parameters, yet it says nothing about subject, course, or campus. The regex patterns and campus enum/default are the only guidance available, and the description does not even clarify that campus defaults to UBCV.

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 (read) plus a specific resource (full official catalog text for a course), which distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like get_course_grades or compare_courses. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Does not establish current offering or personal eligibility" is a genuine when-not constraint that prevents misuse. However, it never says when to use this instead of search_courses (which presumably locates a course) or which sibling answers offering/eligibility questions, so the routing guidance is only half complete.

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