get_course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that the tool accepts multiple course string formats and instructs to pass caveats. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, requires authorization, or how it behaves on errors. The description adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose immediately and provides key input format details succinctly.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and input format but leaves out the term parameter's role and what the return value looks like. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 explains the course_string parameter with three examples ('CS 344', '198:344', '01:198:344'). However, it does not explain the term parameter, which is optional and has a default of null. The description adds value for one but not both parameters.

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 retrieves full details for one course, including prereqs, sections, codes, and credits. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_courses (which would search) and get_sections (which would get sections only).

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 implies usage when a user needs comprehensive details for a single course. It says 'Full detail' and provides input format examples. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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