Find past syllabi for a course

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower for the description. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: links point to UCI Canvas and may require a UCInetID login, which is important for setting expectations about access.

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 concise sentences each add value: the first defines behavior, the second gives the use case, and the third discloses the login requirement. Information is front-loaded with the core function, and there is no redundant wording.

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 read-only retrieval tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context, access implication, and motivating use case. It does not discuss alternatives, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, including examples for courseId, year, quarter, and instructor. The description's mention of 'by term and instructor' reinforces the main filter dimensions but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states that this tool links to syllabi from previous offerings, scoped by course, term, and instructor. It also explains the practical purpose—showing workload, grading breakdown, and topics before enrollment—which effectively distinguishes it from other course-related tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: to show a student what a course is actually like before they enroll. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent without ambiguity.

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