get_course

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

Behavior is disclosed in depth beyond the annotations: read-only against the live school, auth injected server-side, throttling under the API cap, retry on 429/5xx, and detailed non-2xx error semantics with specific status codes. This far exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: behavior, returns, errors, and usage. Despite covering a lot of operational detail, every sentence adds practical value and the critical read-only nature is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description is complete: it covers auth, rate limiting, retries, response format, error mapping, when to use, and when not to use. No output schema exists, but the return format is explained sufficiently.

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 input schema already documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage. The description restates that the id identifies the course and appears in the URL path, but adds no new format, type, or usage nuance beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: getting a single course by id via GET /v2/courses/{id}. It distinguishes itself from plural/listing tools like get_courses and from write operations by explicitly marking itself READ-ONLY and naming related course tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting') and when not to ('Not for changing anything'), pointing to a matching write tool. However, the write alternative is not named directly by tool name, though update_course appears in the related tools list.

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