get_users_per_course

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds rich context: auth is injected server-side and never by the model, calls are throttled to respect a 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx, results are sorted with newest first, and default pagination is 20. This fully discloses operational behavior and side effects (none).

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 long but every section earns its place: method summary, behavior, parameters, returns/errors, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with a one-line summary and uses clear section labels, making it scannable and efficient despite its length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining returns. It does state that it returns the LearnWorlds JSON response body and describes error semantics (401, 403, 404, 422). It does not detail the structure of the user objects in the response, which is a minor gap for a list endpoint, but overall the description is comprehensive for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination interaction ('walk them with page and size each page with items_per_page') and noting the default page size of 20, which is not evident from the schema alone. It doesn't deeply explore the API's response fields, but for parameters it is above baseline.

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 opens with an explicit method and resource ('GET /v2/courses/{id}/users') and a clear statement: 'Retrieves all the users enrolled in the course specified by the provided course id.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that is unambiguous and distinct from sibling list tools like get_users or get_user_progress_per_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?

The 'Use when' section explicitly states when to call it ('safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting') and gives a clear exclusion: 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' It also lists related Courses tools, helping the agent select among siblings.

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