get_lowest_performing_courses

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

The description discloses sort order and business intent, but omits details about output format, error handling (e.g., invalid account_id), or response structure. Although there is an output schema, its existence is not mentioned, and the description does not elaborate on what fields are returned.

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 consists of two tightly written sentences. The first delivers the core functionality, the second adds usage context. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral sort order. It does not describe output structure, but that is acceptable since the output schema exists and the description need not repeat it. Minor gap: no mention of limit default (though present in schema).

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%, with each parameter having a clear schema description. The tool description adds business context but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool returns lowest-completion courses for a client sorted ascending by completion rate. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_client_health and get_launcher_clients by focusing on renewal risk through course completion data.

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 explicitly suggests using this tool to surface renewal risk, providing a clear business context. While it does not compare with siblings or mention when not to use, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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