Get Learning Unit Details

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: missing IDs are reported separately, and schedule/deadline sections may be unavailable for certain courses. This extra transparency about edge cases exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 relatively concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then details the return content, then provides usage context and exclusions. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 adequately explains what is returned (complete course record plus appointments/deadlines) and covers important nuances (missing IDs, unavailable sections). It also provides usage guidance. It lacks some detail but is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 only 25% (only courseIds has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameters' meanings or the effects of includeDeadlines/includeAppointments or the language enum. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving users to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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: batch-inspecting learning-unit course IDs and returning their records, appointments, and deadlines. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on detailed retrieval for specific course IDs and explicitly notes it does not rank or check conflicts, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage condition ('Use this after narrowing a semester shortlist') and states what it does not do (rank, check conflicts, mutate). While it does not explicitly contrast with each sibling tool, the context is sufficient to guide when to use this tool over others.

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