check_updates

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description earns credit by disclosing the stateful baseline behavior: the first call per course silently records a baseline and returns nothing useful. That is non-obvious and important for correct invocation. It still doesn't say whether subsequent calls return a diff list or counts.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one behavioral fact an agent must know. No filler.

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-parameter, read-only, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and the baseline side effect. The remaining gap is the scope of the omitted-course default, which the richer plural framing muddies rather than resolves.

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?

Only one parameter ('course') with 0% schema description coverage and a null default. The description implies per-course scoping ('the first call for a course'), but never explains what happens when 'course' is omitted, despite the first sentence's plural 'courses' framing.

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 outcome: what is new, changed or removed on Moodle relative to the last-seen state. This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like mark_updates_seen, though it never names that sibling or any other alternative 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 baseline sentence implies usage context (call this to discover changes, then mark them seen), but the pairing with mark_updates_seen is left to inference and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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