list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on scope (all courses vs. played courses), ordering, or whether unplayed courses appear, even though 'Courses played' hints at a filter.

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?

One short clause with no filler and the most useful content (the returned fields) up front. The only structural weakness is that it reads as a noun-phrase label rather than an actionable statement.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values, and it doesn't. It is minimally adequate, but for a list endpoint sitting among many aggregating siblings it omits the relationship/ordering context that would prevent mis-selection.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit 'played courses only' scope, which it does mention.

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 names the resource (courses) and the payload it exposes (rounds played, layouts, first/last played dates), but it is a sentence fragment with no verb and never says it *lists* the courses the user has played. It also does nothing to separate this from siblings like list_rounds or course_stats.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. An agent has no signal on when to pick list_courses over course_stats (per-course metrics) or list_rounds, both of which are plausible alternatives for overlapping data.

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