get_course_groups

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description's one piece of added behavioral context is 'No token', which usefully discloses that no authentication is required, but it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding. The raw endpoint path is slightly technical but does convey the source resource.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers the core intent and auth status. It stops short of defining what a 'course group' contains or how the parameters shape the response, which an agent would want before calling.

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 for the two parameters, yet it never explains what courseId identifies or how language affects results. Only the vague implication that results are scoped to a course can be inferred.

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 ('List') and resource ('public course groups') plus the backing endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like list_public_exams or get_course_details, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'List public course groups' plus 'No token' implies this is the unauthenticated listing route, which hints at when it is applicable. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of an alternative for authenticated/filtered listing.

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