Viewing progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the data source ('from the progress reported by the platform', i.e. platform-reported rather than computed) and by enumerating what the response contains in the absence of an output schema. 'Informational only' reinforces the non-mutating nature without contradicting 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the agent gets back, followed by the omission default and a scope caveat. Minor redundancy between 'Informational only' and readOnlyHint, but nothing bloated.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the concrete progress elements. For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; only the aggregation behavior's output shape (e.g. grouping by course) is left implicit.

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 100% and the schema already explains the course-code format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema by explaining what happens when the optional `course` parameter is omitted (aggregate over all started courses), which the schema does not state.

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 names the specific resource (course progress) and enumerates the concrete outputs: remaining video time, unfinished lessons/paragraphs, and still-open self-assessment tests. That is far more specific than the vague title 'Viewing progress'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `status`, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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?

It states the default behavior when `course` is omitted ('summarizes every started course'), which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like `status` or `list_lessons`, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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