List Enrolled Courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, so the description carries a lighter burden. The phrase 'unchanged' reinforces the read-only nature, and the clarification that course id and layer_id are different identifiers adds some context, but it does not disclose substantial new behavior beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and scope, followed by a brief clarification about identifiers. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool shape—one optional parameter and no output schema—the description lists the return contents and clarifies identifier semantics, which covers most of what an agent needs. It omits minor details like search filtering behavior and pagination, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter, 'search', as 'Optional course search text' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any further meaning or usage details for this parameter, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('the student's enrolled course records'). It further distinguishes itself from siblings like list_bookable_courses by emphasizing 'enrolled' and specifying the included fields, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 clearly establishes the context: this returns enrolled course records, and the optional search parameter is documented. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as list_bookable_courses, so it provides strong context but no explicit exclusionary guidance.

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