get_course_overview

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, yet the description does not explain the actual side effect: the refresh parameter defaults to true, suggesting cache updates. It only labels the data as 'cached' and the window as 'bounded,' leaving the agent unaware of refresh/network behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence contains the core verb, resource, and constraints with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's identity.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the definition leaves major gaps for a 6-parameter tool: refresh behavior, parameter meanings, and tool-selection guidance are absent. The description is too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly beyond guessing course_code and window.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining six parameters, but it only hints at course_code and the time window. limit, refresh, days_back/days_ahead details, and include_description are not semantically explained anywhere.

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 names a specific verb ('Summarize'), a distinct resource ('cached Learn items'), and a clear scope ('one course code within a bounded window'). This separates it from sibling tools like list_upcoming and get_calendar_item, which target different item types and output shapes.

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 implies the use case—when an agent needs a summarized overview of a single course's Learn items over a time window—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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