get_contents_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: auth is injected server-side and never by the model, calls are throttled to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap with retries on 429/5xx, and the exact return/error format is specified (HTTP status + JSON body, with 401/403/404/422 semantics). No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with a READ-ONLY · GET badge and a one-sentence summary, then organized into Behavior, Returns, and Use-when sections. Every sentence earns its place: auth, rate limits, error codes, and routing to the write tool appear exactly once with no repetition 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the parameter, safety profile, auth handling, throttling, return shape, error surface, and sibling routing. The absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by the explicit return-format and error-code explanation.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies with the schema doing the heavy lifting. The description's endpoint path /v2/courses/{id}/contents confirms the id identifies the course to read, but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema's 'Course title Id'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope in the opening sentence: 'Get contents of a course... specified by the provided course id. Includes sections and learning activities.' Distinguishes from siblings by naming related Courses tools (create_course_section, get_course, get_course_grades, get_users_per_course, update_course) and pointing to the matching write tool.

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?

Includes an explicit 'Use when:' section: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting. Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' This provides both affirmative context and an exclusion with a named alternative, fully exceeding the requirement.

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