learnus_get_learning_overview

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the epistemic distinction between confirmed required/optional items and 'unknown' states, warning the agent not to overstate certainty. It does not mention caching behavior (left to the refresh param).

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads what is summarized, the second front-loads the trigger and the exclusions. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the reported categories (required incomplete, completed, optional/excluded, unknown), which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing aggregation level (per week vs per course) or return shape, a minor gap for a summary tool.

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 100% (week, status enum, refresh, courseId all documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as the week/courseId relationship or when to set refresh, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (summarizes) and resource (VOD learning states across a course/week), and enumerates the state categories it reports. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very close sibling learnus_get_video_attendance, which the 'attendance' phrasing overlaps with, so an agent must infer the boundary from the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('user asks about course video learning, completion or attendance across a course or week') and two when-not conditions (non-video coursework; treating unknown targets/deadlines as confirmed obligations). The alternative tool is not named, and the second exclusion is phrased cryptically, so it falls short of a 5.

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