get_course_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get details') and mentions the relationship with get_course_content, but doesn't describe error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when parameters are invalid. It provides basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and what information it returns, the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 read operation with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned and when to use the tool. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format or error handling. The workflow guidance with get_course_content is particularly valuable.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (orgUnitId as course ID with environment variable fallback, topicId as TopicId from get_course_content with example). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific course topic/lecture/reading'), listing the exact information returned (title, description, URL, linked assignments). It distinguishes from siblings like get_course_content by focusing on detailed information about a single item rather than listing content.

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 this tool ('Use after get_course_content to get more info about a specific item'), creating a clear workflow relationship with a sibling tool. This tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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