Audit Course Links

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: 'Structural checks only — no outbound HTTP requests,' the extra Canvas API call per quiz when quizzes are included, and the permission requirement. This gives an agent accurate cost, safety, and side-effect expectations beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, findings, opt-in behavior, justification, cost, constraint, and permission. It is front-loaded with the core action, then layers behavioral detail without padding.

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 two-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers default content, opt-in extension, permission requirements, operational cost, and the nature of returned findings. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the include parameter's schema description already explains defaults, opt-in behavior, and the extra API call. The main description adds context about why quiz scanning matters, but for parameter semantics specifically it mostly repeats schema content, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan a course's content ... for broken or outdated links and images.' It further distinguishes the tool by naming the exact findings it produces (cross-course references, empty/malformed URLs) and the content sources it covers, which separates it from nearby audit/search tools.

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?

It clearly states when to include quizzes (opt-in, because they 'break silently for students'), the default set of scanned content, and the permission requirement ('Requires instructor permissions'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the scope and constraints make that largely inferable.

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