Get Courses Cached

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and the no-network property are partly covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: exact lookup by course_id also searches previous-semester catalogs, and stale/empty cache states require a refresh via another tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the local/cache scoping and the mapping use case, then the lookup nuance, then the refresh fallback. No filler, though the '[로컬]' tag and the refresh sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers staleness, refresh routing and the exact-lookup nuance, leaving only minor gaps such as behavior when course_id matches nothing.

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% for the single course_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a course_id exact lookup reaches into previous-semester catalogs, which is not conveyed by the parameter description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('캐시의 현재 학기 강의 스냅샷을 조회') and immediately scopes it as local/cache-only with no network calls. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling eclass_get_courses, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 names the intended use case (course_id ↔ 강의명 mapping without network calls) and gives an explicit fallback condition: if the cache is empty or the semester has changed, refresh via eclass_get_courses's default current query. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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