get_course

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well: it discloses exact-match lookup semantics, that results include instructor data, and it enumerates the complete return payload (课程名、星期、节次时间、地点、学分、教师姓名、职称、院系、邮箱). The only unstated behavior is the not-found case, which is a minor gap.

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 tightly packed paragraphs: the first states the purpose, the second covers parameter format and return fields. There is no filler, no restating of schema facts, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 low-complexity tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it documents the input format, the exact-match semantics, and the full return payload — necessary because no output schema exists to carry that information. An agent has everything required to call it correctly.

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 compensate — and it does, defining course_id semantically as a course number and giving concrete format examples (CS101、AI201). This meaningfully exceeds the schema, which only declares 'type: string' and the parameter name.

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 opens with '按课程编号精确查询某一门课程的详细信息（含任课教师信息）' — a specific verb (查询), resource (课程), and exact-match scope (精确, 某一门). The '精确' qualifier and the by-course-number key distinguish this from sibling tools like search_courses and list_courses_by_weekday without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 conveys a clear usage context: invoke this when you hold an exact course_id, reinforced by the format examples ('course_id 形如 CS101、AI201'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., fuzzy name search belongs to search_courses), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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