List Bookable Courses

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds pagination behavior ('one upstream page' and 'Follow pageCount') and lists the specific data returned. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address auth or rate limits, which are minor given the safety hints.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by actionable usage guidance and a pagination hint. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is easily scannable.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema and optional parameters, the description covers the main return fields and gives usage hints. However, it omits explanations for `page` and `perPage` and does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools. Given the annotations cover safety, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 only 33% (only `search` has a description). The description does not explain `page` or `perPage` semantics, nor does it mention them at all. It references `pageCount` but that is an output field, not a parameter. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to clarify pagination controls, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from defaults and types only.

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 returns 'one upstream page of bookable learning units unchanged' with specific included fields (capacity, enrollment, waitlist state, descriptions, connected modules). It distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating which identifiers to use for booking, schedules, and curriculum tools, making its purpose 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?

Provides guidance on how to use the returned data: 'Use id for booking/waitlists, layerId for course schedules, and connectedModule.moduleVersionId for curriculum tools.' Also advises to 'Follow pageCount to inspect further pages.' It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like list_enrolled_courses or get_learning_unit_details, but the field usage guidance partially covers context.

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