list_glossaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with the explicit capability boundary that only listing is supported, but the phrase "read-only coverage only" is redundant with the annotation and slightly muddies what "Reading ... is not supported" means for a list operation.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Minor waste in "read-only coverage only," which restates the same idea twice, but overall tight.

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, annotations cover the safety profile, and the sole required parameter is fully documented, so the description needn't explain return values. What remains thin is guidance on how the results relate to other course-activity listing tools.

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% and the single parameter carries its own description ("One or more course ids to list glossaries for"). The description adds only the plural-course framing, so the schema does the real work; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List Glossary activities") plus scope ("across one or more courses"). It is unambiguous and, since no sibling tool touches glossaries, differentiation is effectively handled by the resource name alone, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the many other list_* activity tools.

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 gives a useful capability exclusion ("Reading/adding entries is not supported"), which implies the agent should not come here for entry content or writes. However, it names no alternative tool and doesn't state prerequisites or when to prefer this over other course-content listing tools such as get_course_contents.

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