Get Course Curriculum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the output structure ('full three-column structure'), grouping by domain, and including elaborations. It also clarifies the behavior when 'course' is omitted (returns all courses), which is beyond the schema.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Arg/Returns section repeats schema details but adds the omission behavior and example slugs. No extraneous text; it is efficient without being terse.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (three-column structure, components, elaborations). It also covers the optional parameter behavior, making it complete for a read-only retrieval tool. Missing any explicit mention of error cases, but those are not critical for this context.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantic detail by explaining the effect of omitting the optional 'course' parameter and providing example slugs, which helps the agent form valid values even though the schema already covers the enum for subject.

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 ('Get') and resource ('complete BC curriculum for a specific course'), then enumerates the exact components (Big Ideas, Curricular Competencies, Content/KDU items). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_curriculum and list_courses by focusing on the full structured curriculum rather than search results or course listings.

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?

It is implied that this tool is for retrieving the full curriculum for a given course, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_grade_progression or get_competency_connections. The description does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative use cases, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context from the sibling names.

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