list_courses

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive semantics, so the bar is low. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: results are paginated and iteration should continue until nextPage is null. Minor friction: it references 'nextPage' while the only input parameter is 'page', which is mildly confusing without the (absent) output schema to clarify.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the pagination caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs to call it. The one real gap is the unexplained relationship between the 'page' parameter and the 'nextPage' continuation it mentions.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry meaning. It mentions pagination, which gestures at the 'page' parameter's purpose, but never explains how 'page' interacts with 'nextPage' or the valid range. Partial compensation only, so the 3 baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List your active Canvas courses') with a scoping qualifier ('active') that separates it from sibling list_* tools like list_assignments and list_modules. It stops short of naming how it differs from those siblings, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 implies the context (listing courses) but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as get_course_work_status or get_study_overview, nor any exclusions. The pagination instruction is operational guidance rather than usage routing, leaving selection largely to inference.

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