get_course_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns details; it doesn't disclose what happens with invalid course codes, the structure of the returned data, error behavior, or whether it performs network/quota operations. An output schema exists, so some return structure is covered, but behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the parameter list. Arg documentation is efficient. Minor waste: the trailing ellipsis in the field list is slightly vague but acceptable.

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 a rich sibling set and no annotations, the description omits differentiation guidance and behavioral detail. The output schema exists which off-loads return-value documentation, but the missing sibling/substitution guidance and error/edge-case behavior make this only partially 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?

Expanded schema would have 2 params with inputs documented in code: 'code' gets an example ('4DM00'), and 'institution' is explained (e.g. 'tue') with its default behavior noted. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by giving type hints, examples, and defaults.

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+resource ('Get full course details') and enumerates the content (content, exams, lecturers, materials). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_course or get_course_details_by_id, making it somewhat unclear which sibling this replaces or complements.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or excluded cases are given. With siblings get_course, get_course_details_by_id, and get_course_structure present, the agent gets no help choosing among them. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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