list_terms

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 that the tool returns term id, name, and dates, and that it lists terms. However, it does not explain the workflow_state filtering behavior (active/deleted/all) or any default behavior, relying on the schema for that information. For a read-only list tool, 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause provides value: what it lists, what it returns, and how to use the result. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, return values, and downstream usage. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes the single parameter (workflow_state) with an enum and default. The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond pointing out that the returned id is useful for other tools, which is indirectly about the output, not the parameter itself.

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 action ('List enrollment terms') on a specific resource ('terms defined in the account'), specifies the return fields (id, name, start/end dates), and clearly differentiates this tool from siblings that handle courses, modules, or calendar events.

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 contextual usage by showing how the returned id is used in downstream tools ('list_term_courses or create_course'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident and no alternative term-listing tool exists among siblings.

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