get_course_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns complete course information (including content, requirements, points, and objectives) and mentions it's the most used function for teachers. However, it doesn't address potential behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'get' implies read-only).

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, use cases, returns, example, important note). While slightly verbose, each section adds value: the use cases help understand when to use it, the returns section clarifies output, and the example provides concrete parameter guidance. No sentences feel wasted.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and provides a parameter example. The main gap is lack of explicit mention of the optional 'version' parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 provides an example parameter value: 'code="MATMAT01c" för Matematik 1c' and explains that the tool retrieves details for a specific course. While it doesn't explicitly mention the optional 'version' parameter, the context of getting course details implies versioning might be relevant. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hämta detaljerad information om en specifik kurs' (Get detailed information about a specific course). It specifies the exact resource (course) and action (get details), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_courses (which likely returns multiple results) and get_course_versions (which focuses on version history).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Detta är den mest använda funktionen för lärare!' (This is the most used function for teachers!) and lists specific use cases like course planning, analyzing grade requirements, understanding course objectives, and planning assessment. It clearly indicates this is the primary tool for detailed course information retrieval.

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