get_student_courses_by_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation and gives helpful category_id examples. However, it does not disclose whether both parameters are expected together, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, or any hidden constraints, so behavioral transparency is only partially fulfilled.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. The parenthetical examples are useful and not redundant. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and one entirely unexplained parameter. Even though an output schema exists, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool with correct semantics, especially regarding how program_type interacts with category_id and when each parameter is needed.

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 explains category_id through examples ('1-236' or '2-236'), but program_type is not mentioned at all. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, leaving one parameter completely unexplained is a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('list of courses'), and a clear filtering criterion (student's category). It includes concrete examples of category_id formats, making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_program_courses or get_student_course_categories, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need courses for a student's category. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor any mention of alternative sibling tools such as get_student_course_categories or list_program_courses. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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