get_course_reviews

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

Discloses conditional behavior with authenticated session cookie and graceful fallback. No annotation provided, so description carries the full burden; it addresses key behavioral traits well, though does not mention rate limits or detailed return structure.

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 concise, clear sentences; no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by important conditional behavior.

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?

Covers purpose, conditional behavior, and error guarantee. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Slightly incomplete on what 'breakdowns' entail (e.g., distributions), but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Single parameter 'course_code' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description merely says 'for a course' without specifying format or examples, adding little value beyond the parameter name.

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 it gets detailed Penn Course Review breakdowns for a course, clarifying the specific resource. However, does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling like get_course_ratings, so slightly less than perfect.

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?

Clearly describes when to use based on authentication status, including fallback behavior and guarantee of no errors. Could improve by noting alternatives among siblings.

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