get_course_details

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real context beyond that: which underlying tables are touched, that veranstaltungenTermine is only read when includeDates is true (and that true is the default), and the required permission — all things the agent could not learn from annotations or schema.

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 compact sentence with the resource, the conditional behavior, and the prerequisite front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The internal table names are dense jargon but they do encode real behavioral information.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back for a detail call (e.g., which fields appear when dates are included). It explains input-side behavior well but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified, so an agent knows how to call it but not what to expect.

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 does explain includeDates behavior and its default, which is genuinely additive, but lvNumber is only described as 'one LV number' with no format, source, or example despite the schema's numeric pattern.

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: read veranstaltungenDetails for a single LV number, with dates read conditionally. An agent can tell this is a single-course detail lookup, but the description never distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as get_course, get_course_dates, or search_lectures, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch details for one known LV number) and the access prerequisite 'requires the lectures right' is stated, which is useful. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_course/get_course_dates guidance and no advice on when to set includeDates=false to avoid the extra table read.

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