recommend_courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sorting behavior and whether higher/lower values are better, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. This is adequate for a search/rank tool but could be more transparent.

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 concise at two sentences, efficiently stating the purpose and then detailing the sort_by options. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. A small improvement could be to structure the parameter explanation more clearly, but it remains effective.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and 4 parameters, the description covers the core purpose and the most important parameter (sort_by). However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings and does not address default behavior for limit or semester. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 compensate. It only explains the sort_by parameter (one of four), describing its possible values and their ordering. The parameters query, limit, and semester are not explained, leaving a significant gap for the agent to understand their semantics.

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 it searches and ranks courses by a quality metric, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_courses that likely only search without ranking. The verb 'recommend' implies ranking, and the sort_by list makes the ranking criteria explicit.

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 description explains the sort_by values and their ordering, which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_courses or find_courses_by_attribute, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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