fiuba_get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context, namely the shape of the returned payload and that all times are Buenos Aires local. It omits any note about permissions, visibility of hidden modules, or response size, keeping it out of the top score.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero filler, with the payload description front-loaded and the two integration hints (forumid, read_file) trailing as secondary detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by summarizing the returned modules and metadata plus the timezone, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The only meaningful omission is how an agent should acquire a valid courseid.

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% and there is one parameter, so the description carries the burden. 'Shows a course' implies courseid identifies the course, but it never states the format or that the value comes from fiuba_list_courses, which is a real gap for a 0%-coverage schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Shows a course') and immediately enumerates the returned structure (sections, modules, resources, assignments, forums, links, descriptions, dates, file URLs). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling fiuba_list_courses, which lists rather than drills into a single course.

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?

Gives concrete follow-up routing: use a forum module's `instance` as the forumid elsewhere, and a file `url` with fiuba_read_file, which effectively names the next tool in the workflow. It does not state prerequisites for obtaining courseid or any when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of the top band.

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