get_course_dates

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds important auth context: courseId requires no token, while lvNumber requires a token and lectures right. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or return shape, but the added auth detail is substantive.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two invocation modes and the exclusivity constraint. There is no redundant wording.

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?

It covers the main routing decision and auth requirements, which are the highest-risk parts of the call. However, for a tool with six parameters and no output schema, it is incomplete: the four undocumented filters and any result/pagination behavior are left unaddressed.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains courseId and lvNumber semantics and exclusivity, but leaves limit, groupId, language, and includePast completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. This is only partial compensation for a six-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List course dates.' It distinguishes two operating modes by source endpoint, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as get_course_details or get_course.

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 gives clear conditional guidance: use courseId for the public catalogue and lvNumber for wbservicesbasic, and pass only one. It does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling course-detail tools, but the mode-selection guidance is strong.

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