get_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds value by naming the return payload contents (times, date ranges, bundles, uncertainty), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens for invalid course/term.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the retrieval purpose is front-loaded and the reuse hint follows. Efficient, though the enumeration of return fields is slightly list-like.

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 no output schema the description does describe return contents, which helps. But for a 2-required-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, omitting any explanation of course_code/term formats is a meaningful gap in an otherwise complete picture.

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 neither parameter has documentation, so the description carries the full burden. It never mentions course_code or term, their expected formats (e.g., term string shape, course code syntax), or constraints, leaving both required parameters semantically opaque.

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: 'Retrieve actual McGill sections' for a course, and enumerates what is returned (times, date ranges, component bundles, uncertainty). It differentiates somewhat by pointing to check_conflicts, though it does not distinguish itself from search_courses or generate_schedules.

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 second sentence gives an implied downstream usage ('Reuse returned section ids or section objects with check_conflicts'), which hints at when this tool fits in a workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs search_courses or generate_schedules, and no prerequisites stated.

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