list_h5p_activities

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 structurally. The description adds real value by clarifying the scope ceiling (no attempt/result data, read-only coverage only), but it says nothing about result volume or paging behavior.

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 scope stated first and the limitation second; nothing is wasted. Slightly clipped phrasing in the second sentence keeps it from being maximally clear.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and a single fully-documented required parameter plus read-only annotations covers the calling requirements. Only the lack of routing guidance toward sibling list tools is left open.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase "one or more courses" usefully confirms that the array accepts multiple ids, but adds no further semantics. 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 ("List") and resource ("H5P interactive-content activities") plus the multi-course scope. That is enough to separate it from siblings such as list_lessons, list_scorms or get_course_contents, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 exclusion "Attempt results are not supported by this server" implicitly tells the agent not to come here for attempt data, which is a useful negative signal. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_course_contents or the other list_* activity tools, so usage is only implied.

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