Public Course Equivalences

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that no login is required and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not describe response behavior, empty results, pagination, or error conditions. For a simple public get this is adequate but not rich.

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 two terse sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable context about cohort reconciliation and authentication.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool still has four parameters with no schema-level descriptions and no annotations. The description does not explain what program or plan_type_id mean or how required values should be formatted, leaving significant room for misinvocation.

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 plan and branch role, but leaves program and plan_type_id undocumented, does not clarify the default of plan_type_id, and gives no value-format guidance for required 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 states a specific verb (Return), resource (course equivalences for a plan and branch), and contextual purpose (reconciling renamed course codes). This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as obs_public_get_prerequisites or obs_public_list_plans.

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 offers a useful context clue—how renamed course codes are reconciled across cohorts—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of when another public tool should be preferred.

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