learnus_get_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious semantics: it is configurable/broad by default, and that 'informational, completed and unknown items remain distinct' — a result-shaping trait not implied by annotations or schema. It stops short of describing pagination or section defaults.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before routing advice. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information; the closing sentence on item-state distinction is terse but purposeful. Slightly dense but no waste.

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 10-parameter, zero-required aggregator with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing decision layer — when to pick it over siblings and what conceptual sections exist. Range defaults and section limits are left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters including the date formats, courseId provenance and include* defaults. The description only implicitly maps its category list to the include flags, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Gets a configurable broad LearnUs coursework summary' with an explicit enumeration of what it spans (assignments, calendar deadlines, announcements, notifications, optional learning/attendance). An agent can tell this apart from narrower siblings like learnus_upcoming or learnus_get_weekly_tasks without opening 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 explicit when-to-use ('default broad LearnUs retrieval Tool when a request spans multiple categories or the exact underlying resource is not yet known'), explicit when-not-to-use ('generic personal to-do/calendar questions', 'focused request that maps cleanly to a narrower Tool'), and names the concrete alternative for weekly tasks (learnus_get_weekly_tasks). Full routing guidance.

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