get_course_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool accessing external data with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It lists relevant data fields without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating core functionality from the data list for better readability.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (external data fetch, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is returned but lacks context on permissions, reliability, or output structure. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is incomplete for safe operation.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'course_url' with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Coursera course'), listing key information types (syllabus, instructor, duration, skills, reviews). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_courses' by focusing on a specific course rather than searching, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_my_courses' or 'get_certificates'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a course URL), when to choose this over 'search_courses' for finding course details, or how it differs from 'get_my_courses' for enrolled courses. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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