Public Course Prerequisites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: the tool is public, requires no login, and returns current programme-defined prerequisites rather than plan-specific data. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple public getter this is adequate.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the exact output and scope; the second adds valuable nuances about current definitions and authentication. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter public getter with an output schema, this is mostly self-contained: purpose, scope, and auth are clear. The main gap is the branch parameter format, and the description does not explicitly route agents to public branch-listing tools or the plan-specific alternative. Usable, 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?

The description only refers to 'a branch' in passing, giving minimal meaning to the branch parameter. It does not specify whether branch expects a code, name, or ID, nor does it point to obs_public_list_branches for valid values. With 0% schema description coverage, this is not enough compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the published prerequisite expression and minimum completed credits for every course in a branch.' It clearly distinguishes itself from plan-specific tools by stating 'not any one course plan,' which separates it from siblings like obs_check_prerequisites.

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 gives clear context: it is for published, branch-wide prerequisite definitions, requires no login, and explicitly excludes course-plan-specific views. It does not name the alternative tools explicitly, but the 'not any one course plan' phrase provides a useful when-not condition.

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