list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the 'visible'/'approved' scoping qualifier and the shape of the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth requirements beyond the annotation hints.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('observed IDs') costs it nothing materially.

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 1-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back and the scope. Gaps around pagination and how 'visible' is determined remain, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 burden, and it only weakly compensates: 'for an approved course' implies courseId must reference an approved course but gives no format or validation detail. The parameter name courseId is self-evident, so meaning is not lost, but no real added semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (resources) scoped to an approved course, and even enumerates the returned fields (IDs, titles, types, format metadata). It is clearly separable from list_courses and download_resource by resource type, though it never names a sibling 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 phrase 'for an approved course' implies the context in which this applies, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (download_resource) for actually fetching content, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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