get_course_stats

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 states what the tool returns ('Returns enrollment count, number of unanswered questions...'), which implies a read-only aggregation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention permissions, error behavior, or potential performance implications. The description gives a reasonable but not exhaustive behavioral picture.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, then a bullet-like list of return values, then a minimal Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only stats tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return values. It even provides a cross-reference for finding the course ID. There are no significant gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 explains the only parameter, course_id, and adds a cross-reference: 'use list_courses to find it.' This is highly valuable for an agent because it tells how to obtain the required identifier, going beyond the schema's bare integer type.

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 function: 'Get a quick course overview for daily review.' It lists specific metrics (enrollment count, unanswered questions, unresolved threads, new follow-up replies, top categories), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_enrollment_counts or list_threads. The verb 'get' and resource 'course stats' are precise.

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 context: 'for daily review.' This implies a high-level summary use case and differentiates it from more detailed or targeted tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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