get_course

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

The annotations already cover the read-only and open-world aspects, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by disclosing the breadth of data (groups, lecturers, rooms, curriculum placement, assessment, exam dates), but it does not flag that some fields depend on the include_description parameter triggering an extra request; that nuance lives only in the schema.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with a front-loaded purpose phrase and a scannable comma-separated list of content areas. Every word earns its place; no redundant or tangential information appears.

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?

With a 100% parameter schema, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and a declared output schema, the description does not need to explain return formats or parameter behavior. It provides a complete inventory of the returned data and is sufficient for an agent to decide to call this tool, though it would benefit from naming a sibling alternative for fuller guidance.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description does not meaningfully expand on lv, semester, or include_description beyond what the schema states. It implicitly connects to the lv parameter by referring to 'one course' but adds no semantic detail.

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 identifies the tool as returning comprehensive details for a single course, enumerating specific fields such as ECTS, groups, lecturers, dates, and curriculum placement. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_courses (search) and get_course_schedule (schedule-only), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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 that this tool is for obtaining full course details when you have a specific course identifier, but it never states explicit when-to-use conditions or names alternative tools. The wide scope ('everything') and the listing of fields subtly differentiate it from schedule-only or search tools, but the guidance is left to inference.

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