get_course_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It tells you this returns descriptive/schema information (not actual course data), which is useful context. However, it doesn't state whether the institution parameter affects the returned structure, whether the output is identical for all institutions, or how exhaustive the structure description is.

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 clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately sized for what appears to be a simple introspection tool.

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?

While the description is short, it has an output schema (which can explain return values) and only one optional parameter. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description adequately covers the core purpose. The main gap is the mysterious institution parameter, but with an output schema present, completeness is reasonably high.

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 schema has one optional parameter (institution) with 0% description coverage. The description entirely omits what the 'institution' parameter does, which could be relevant—whether the course structure varies by institution. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (which is just name/type).

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 'Describe the sections and fields a course can contain' uses a clear verb (describe) and resource (course sections/fields). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like list_courses and get_course, which return actual data, while this returns the structural schema of a course.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It's implied that you'd call this to understand course structure before calling list_courses/get_course, but this is not stated. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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