List courses

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's extra context is the real value: result ordering, the open/locked 'unlock' semantics, the honest caveat that Skool doesn't reveal the lock reason, and the fact that locked courses list no modules. It doesn't mention auth requirements or behavior for an invalid group name.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the title sentence, followed by concrete details about ordering, lock status, and module links. The closing 'Use the module links in welcome messages' is slightly tangential but short enough not to bloat the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to describe what comes back, and for that it does well: courses in order, unlock status, modules with links for open courses only. It falls short of fully complete by omitting any error/invalid-group behavior, but the shape of the result is clear enough to call the tool confidently.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'group' with an example. The description only implies the group scoping through 'the group's Classroom' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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?

A specific verb and resource: it lists the courses of a group's Classroom, and it states the scope (open and locked courses, modules only for open ones). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling such as get_course or create_course, but the plural-list semantics separate it well enough in practice.

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?

Usage is only implied: you use it to see a Classroom's courses. The one directive, 'Use the module links in welcome messages', tells the agent what to do with the output rather than when to pick this tool over get_course or list_lessons-style siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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