List SAS chapter resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by naming what is filtered out (answers, owner details, class rosters, raw provider payloads), which tells the agent what the results will and will not contain.

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?

Two tight sentences: the operation is front-loaded and the exclusion list is compressed into a single clause. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence's phrasing ('Unsupported scheduled visibility is excluded') is slightly opaque for what it conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only remaining gap is pagination behavior for limit/offset, which is a minor omission for a straightforward list operation.

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 schema documents sectionId and materialId but leaves limit and offset with only defaults and bounds (50% coverage), and the description says nothing about pagination or ID sourcing. It neither adds nor loses meaning versus 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List visible resource metadata') scoped to a 'discovered book/chapter', which separates it from siblings like sas_download_resource or sas_get_material. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'In a discovered book/chapter' implies a prerequisite (discovery via the catalog/section tools), and the exclusion of 'unsupported scheduled visibility' hints at a limiting case. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-another-tool guidance.

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