litmos_get_user_course_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (scores, attempts, pass/fail) and field names, providing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides a clear example of the return structure. While the example is verbose, it is helpful and not overly long. No unnecessary words.

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 included output schema example and clear parameter descriptions, the description gives a complete picture of what the tool does, its inputs, and its outputs. No gaps remain.

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 input schema already describes each parameter as 'Litmos encrypted user ID' and 'Litmos encrypted course ID,' so the description's restatement adds no new semantics. With schema description coverage effectively 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed course and module-level results for a specific user/course pair,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like litmos_get_user_courses or litmos_get_user.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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