List Course Sections

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: discloses pagination (100 per request, fetches every page), failure mode ('Results are incomplete' rather than silent truncation), permission-gated silent dropping of total_students and permissions extras, conditional visibility of SIS fields, the fact that the student roster include is never requested, and the read-access requirement.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return fields, then routing to alternatives, then behavioral caveats — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and long, but each sentence carries distinct information; the only mild cost is that the permission caveats arrive as a block an agent must parse carefully.

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 still specifies returned fields, pagination, truncation failure, permission-gated fields and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret what comes back.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: search_term's 2-character floor with the consequence that shorter terms are ignored, and the conditional suppression of the include values (total_students, permissions) based on roster/grade read permission — behavior the schema's include[] one-liner does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the sections of a course') and enumerates exactly which fields come back (id, name, course_id, start_at, end_at, restrict_enrollments_to_section_dates), so an agent knows both what it does and what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it (resolving section IDs for create_assignment_override, enroll_user's course_section_id, list_assignments' needs_grading_count_by_section) and when not to (list_course_enrollments or list_course_users for people, get_course with include:['sections'] when other course fields are needed in the same call). Alternatives and their selecting conditions are all present.

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