Get full course details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the breadth of the returned data (e.g., prerequisite structure, enrollment restrictions, GE credit, repeatability, term offerings), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect from the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full catalogue detail for one course') and then efficiently lists the included data categories. Every clause adds information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted words.

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 single-course detail tool, the description enumerates all relevant content areas (description, units, prerequisites, unlockable courses, restrictions, GE credit, repeatability, terms offered). With no output schema, this description gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool returns. Combined with the annotations covering safety, the description is complete for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 100% (the only parameter courseId has a detailed description with examples like 'COMPSCI 161' or 'I&C SCI 46'). The description adds no further parameter guidance, but the schema already fully documents the parameter format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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?

The description explicitly states it provides 'Full catalogue detail for one course' and enumerates the specific data points (description, units, prerequisites, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_courses (which searches across courses) and check_prerequisites (which only checks prerequisites). The verb 'get' and resource 'course' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides a clear usage context: 'Use this before advising someone to take a course.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list and the tool's purpose as the comprehensive course detail source.

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