get_course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explains default behavior (most recent offering, configured institution) which is valuable, but it doesn't clarify what 'header' means in terms of data returned, whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid course codes, or error behavior. The default-value disclosure is helpful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 concise and efficient. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then uses a clear Argus-style list for parameters. It's about the right length with minimal waste, though the parameter detail could arguably be tighter.

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 has an output schema (which explains return values), no annotations, and 3 well-documented parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It explains defaults and parameter semantics. The main gap is not clarifying what 'header' means relative to sibling tools, and the tool could benefit from mentioning its relationship to get_course_details and get_course_structure.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter documentation. The description does explain all three parameters: code (with example '4DM00'), year (start year or range, defaults to most recent), and institution (code, defaults to configured one). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types. However, it could be more detailed about the year range format.

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 this gets 'the header for a course code', specifying the verb (get) and resource (course header). It distinguishes from siblings like get_course_structure, get_course_details, and get_course_details_by_id by focusing on 'header', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings. The title and name align well with the purpose.

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 useful parameter context (defaults for year and institution) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. Siblings like get_course_details and get_course_structure exist, and the description doesn't clarify the distinction between 'header' and these other views. There's no when/when-not guidance, though the default behavior for year and institution is helpful context.

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