get_course_prerequisites

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly conveys a read-only retrieval and enumerates the data returned, but does not address error behavior, input format expectations, authentication requirements, or effects for missing courses. The verb 'Retrieve' implies no side effects, but the description is otherwise on the minimal side.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the verb and object, lists the specific data types retrieved, and ends with the scope ('for a specific METU course'). There is no unnecessary information.

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 an output schema exists, the return values do not need to be explained. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter semantics, the description leaves input format and edge-case behavior unspecified. It is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but not fully complete.

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, but it only says 'for a specific METU course' without explaining the role or format of any individual parameter. department_code, semester_code, and course_code are self-explanatory in name, but no additional meaning is added to help an agent construct valid arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names a clear resource: prerequisite course requirements, prerequisite set groups, and minimum required letter grades such as DD. It also scopes the operation to a specific METU course, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_course_info or list_program_courses.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever prerequisite details for a METU course are needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate usage.

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