Get Course Syllabus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it describes the return format ('Returns the course overview description as markdown'), specifies the attachment download behavior, and includes an important user interaction requirement. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the core operational behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, specifying return format and download behavior, and providing critical usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and the most important information (the user interaction requirement) is appropriately emphasized.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, when to use it, and important behavioral constraints. It explains the return format and download behavior adequately. The main gap is lack of information about error conditions or authentication requirements, but overall it's quite complete for its complexity level.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the downloadPath parameter's purpose ('also downloads the syllabus attachment') and providing context about the attachment format ('e.g. PDF'), but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already documents for both parameters.

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 specific action ('fetch'), resource ('syllabus/overview text and optional attachment for a course'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on syllabus retrieval rather than announcements, assignments, or other course content. It explicitly mentions both the overview text and attachment download capabilities.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the downloadPath parameter ('If downloadPath is provided, also downloads the syllabus attachment') and includes a critical prerequisite warning ('You MUST ask the user where they want to save the file before calling this tool with a downloadPath'). This clearly differentiates usage patterns for the two parameter scenarios.

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