learningsuite_get_member_course_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not explain what 'access info' means (e.g., entitlements, expiry, access check date) or what 'progress info' includes. The optional dateForAccessCheck param suggests behavior (checking access on a specific date) that is not disclosed in the description, leaving ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No filler or redundancy; every word is purposeful.

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?

The tool has three parameters, an optional one, and no output schema. The description is adequate for a simple getter but leaves gaps: it does not clarify the optional dateForAccessCheck behavior, what access/progress information is returned, or how it relates to other member/course tools. More detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema; it fails to explain how dateForAccessCheck affects the result. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter info, but no additional value is provided.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('access and progress info for a member in a specific course'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_member_courses (list courses) and get_course_modules_for_member (modules) by focusing on access and progress for a single member-course pair.

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 intended use case is implied by the description but not explicitly stated. No mention of when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. While the name and description convey the scenario, there is no explicit guidance on selection.

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