Get course

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: ordering guarantees ('in Classroom order'), folder kind markers interleaved with their lessons, and a visibility scoping rule for drafts vs admins. It does not cover pagination or size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with the core identity and the sibling disambiguation, then a detail sentence. There is some redundancy: the opening fragment 'One course with its lessons and folders in Classroom order' is restated by 'Returns one Classroom course...', costing a little tightness.

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 carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so (fields listed, folders tagged by kind, lessons ordered). Minor gaps remain around nesting depth and missing-course behavior, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, with both group and course_id documented (including that course_id comes from list_courses or create_course). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns one Classroom course') and enumerates returned fields (title, description, published, lessons in order). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_lesson, which reads a single lesson's text and video, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

It gives clear routing context: use get_lesson for a lesson, and this tool for the course with its lessons/folders in order. It also states an access condition ('Only courses this account can open; admins also see drafts'), which tells the caller when results may be missing. No explicit exclusion versus list_courses, so not a 5.

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