get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: the module ids returned are course-module ids (cmid), preventing ID-space confusion. It stops short of noting payload size or pagination for what is clearly a heavy aggregate read.

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 payload enumeration is front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the cmid caveat following as a short clarifying sentence. No wasted framing, though the parenthetical list is long and slightly dense.

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 details need not be restated, and the description is unusually thorough about contents plus the cmid caveat. However, it omits when to prefer this tool over the narrower material/assignment siblings and gives no guidance on the required course_id, leaving real gaps for a broad aggregate tool.

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% and the sole parameter course_id is never explained in the description. The cmid note hints that a different ID space exists for modules, but it does not tell the agent what a course_id is or where to obtain one.

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+resource ('Full view of one course') and enumerates exactly what is included: description, instructors, sections/modules, materials, and major activities. The scoping word 'one course' implicitly separates it from list_courses, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it needs complete detail on a single course, versus search_course_materials or get_material for narrower lookups. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative.

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