Registration Options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well by revealing that the tool aggregates renamed equivalents, offering availability, CRNs, meeting times, and prerequisite checks in one call. It does not mention auth requirements or explicitly state that it is read-only, but the get-prefix and non-mutating content make the semantics reasonably 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the core behavior and the second gives the intended use. The phrase "The single call" is somewhat promotional but does not add meaningful operational guidance; overall there is no wasted detail.

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?

While the tool is complex and has four optional parameters, the description explains none of them, and there are no annotations to fill in safety or filtering behavior. The output schema exists, but that does not help an agent choose parameter values; the description is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 input schema has no property descriptions and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. An agent cannot tell how level, program_code, assume_passed, or only_eligible affect the result set; with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 what the tool computes: for each course still required for graduation, which course codes satisfy it, current-term offerings with CRNs and meeting times, and prerequisite status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by combining graduation requirements, equivalences, offerings, and prerequisites into one planning call, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb and does not name alternatives.

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 line "The single call to drive course-registration planning" gives a clear use context, implying this tool should be chosen when the agent needs a consolidated view for registration planning. It does not enumerate when to prefer more granular siblings such as obs_check_prerequisites or obs_get_schedule, so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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