course_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation and may return unexpected/extra data. The description adds the behavior of listing all items in sections, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, depth of item details, or whether the output is hierarchical. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the Args section provides parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to specify the course, and how to filter sections. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to. A minor gap: no mention of what happens if the course is not found or if the section filter matches nothing, but this is not critical for a read-only overview tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 'course' parameter accepts a code, numeric id, or name part, and the 'section' parameter filters by number or name with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the exact format of the output or how section matching works in edge cases (e.g., partial matches).

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's function: showing a course's sections and every item in them, with specific examples of item types (files, assignments, pages, links, forums) and ids. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_courses (which likely lists courses) and open_item (which likely opens a specific item).

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 explains the purpose and the two parameters, including how to specify the course (code, numeric id, or name part) and how to filter sections. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the clear scope (course overview vs. list_courses, open_item, etc.) implies the usage context. A small gap: no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance.

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