get_activity_completion_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: results include tracking rules ('must view' vs 'must spend N minutes') and, importantly, explicitly does NOT return watch-percentage or deadlines for vod modules. That negative disclosure is the kind of information annotations cannot convey.

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 core scope statement is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the richer-than comparison and then the exception for vod modules. The backtick-heavy formatting is slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained; the description instead covers what the tool uniquely adds and where its data falls short. Only the omission of the closely related get_course_completion_status comparison keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including where to source the course_id ('e.g. from list_courses'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not compensating beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get this account's completion status for every activity/module in a course') and explicitly contrasts its output with get_course_contents' per-module `completed` flag. It never addresses get_course_completion_status, the closest-sounding sibling, so the differentiation is strong but incomplete.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: for `vod` modules prefer get_course_contents because that tool returns watch-percentage and deadline data this one lacks. That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explaining when an agent should pick this over get_course_completion_status.

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