recommend_course

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

The description mentions joining tables and returning one course ordered by sequence, but lacks details on selection logic (e.g., how the best course is chosen), permissions, side effects, or error handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage example, third distinguishes from sibling, fourth explains internal logic. No redundant information, though could be slightly more compact.

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 recommendation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains input and output (one course with spots in order) but omits details like output format, behavior when no matches, or how the single recommendation is selected. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only reiterates the parameter names (region, theme, max_hours) without adding format, constraints, or examples. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names.

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 the tool recommends humanities tour courses based on region, theme, and time constraints. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_spot' by specifying that this tool is for multi-spot courses, not single spots.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (user asks for a course with region, theme, and time constraints) and when not to use (single spot inquiry should use get_spot). This clear differentiation helps the agent select the correct tool.

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