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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context with "visibles", indicating only sections visible to the caller are returned, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope ("todas", "visibles") stated first and no wasted words. It is perhaps slightly too terse to carry usage guidance, but structurally efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool backed by annotations, the description covers the essential scope. It stops short of the completeness an agent needs for large courses, omitting any note on result volume, ordering, or what happens when sections are hidden.

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 a single parameter (course_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies a course scope but never clarifies that course_id is a numeric identifier or where to obtain it; the mapping is only inferable from the tool's subject matter.

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: returns all visible sections, descriptions and activities of a course. An agent can distinguish it as a full-contents fetch, but the description never names or contrasts it with siblings like search_course_contents or read_content.

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 word "todas" implies this is the exhaustive-retrieval option versus a targeted search, so the choice is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as search_course_contents when the agent only needs a subset.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the shape of the results (ID, name, link), with no mention of volume, pagination, or whether all enrollments are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the scope and the returned fields with no filler. Appropriate sizing for a zero-argument listing tool.

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 inputs, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, almost nothing else is required. Minor residual gaps: it restates return fields the output schema already provides, and says nothing about result volume or pagination.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lista todos los cursos matriculados del usuario') and even enumerates the fields returned (ID, nombre, enlace). It is clearly distinguishable from the content-oriented siblings (get_course_contents, read_content, search_course_contents) by implication, though it never explicitly says so.

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 scope phrase 'cursos matriculados del usuario' implies when the tool applies (discovering the user's courses before drilling into contents), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_course_contents.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: pagination via next_offset, links returned for formats without text extraction, and an explicit non-scope statement ('doesn't send tasks or publish messages'). It stops short of saying what a page/truncation boundary looks like in practice.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the core capability is in the first clause, followed by pagination and return-format notes. Minor waste in the trailing scope sentence, but nothing bloated.

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 tool with no output schema, it covers return behavior (extracted text vs. links) and pagination reasonably. The gaps are the undocumented offset/max_chars inputs and the absence of any indication of what the response looks like beyond 'next_offset'.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It references pagination ('next_offset') and thus hints at the offset param, but the name doesn't match the actual 'offset' parameter and max_chars (the 30000-char truncation knob) is never explained anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb (read) and enumerates the resource types it handles: activity, folder, page, book chapter, PDF from the classroom. That scope implicitly separates it from list_courses/get_course_contents/search_course_contents, but no sibling is ever named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a genuine usage hint for recursion: folders and books return links that can be read with this same tool. However, it never states when to pick this over search_course_contents or get_course_contents, nor what input (URL) is expected to come from those tools. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that search operates on the index, not file contents, but nothing about match semantics or limits; with annotations carrying the burden, a 3 fits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope boundary in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is terse but does not read as under-specified for its length.

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 output schema available and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only purpose and scope, which it delivers. The main residual gap is match semantics for the query parameter, which is minor given the small two-parameter surface.

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 0%, so the schema gives no parameter meaning. The description partially compensates: 'por nombre y descripción' indicates what the query string matches, and 'de un curso' implies course_id scopes the search. It still omits matching behavior (exact vs partial) and query format.

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 (Busca) and resource (el índice de un curso) and adds a scope boundary (no dentro de archivos) that separates it from read_content. It does not name the sibling tools explicitly, but the boundary is clear enough to distinguish intent.

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 parenthetical '(no dentro de archivos)' implies an exclusion, steering the agent away for file-content search, but it never names the alternative tool or states the condition for switching. Usage must be largely inferred.

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