course_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: file URLs are token-redacted and must be exchanged via download_file. It omits pagination, permission/auth requirements, and what happens for an invalid or inaccessible courseid.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the important redaction caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. For a one-parameter read tool the description covers the essential pitfall (redacted URLs needing download_file); only the usage routing and permission context are thin.

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 single courseid parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema adds nothing. The description does not clarify the parameter at all, though courseid is largely self-evident given the sibling list_courses 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?

Names the specific resource contents returned (sections, activities, files) scoped to a course, which distinguishes it from list_courses and list_assignments. It lacks an explicit verb ("Retrieve/Get"), reading as a noun-phrase fragment, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 one concrete routing rule: pass redacted file URLs to download_file. It does not say when to choose this over list_assignments or list_courses, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a valid courseid or enrollment permission.

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