Get Curriculum Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the requirement of at least two crawls and the return structure (course-level summary plus item-level detail). This is valuable and non-redundant, though it leaves out performance or error details.

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: a clear purpose sentence, an Args list, and a Returns note. It is not overly verbose, but the Args section duplicates schema content, adding slight redundancy. This keeps it from a 5, but it remains efficient and scannable.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return type (course-level and item-level detail) and the prerequisite for meaningful results. It lacks explicit examples or edge-condition guidance, but for a read-only query tool with good schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with types, defaults, and examples. The description's Args section restates the same info without adding new meaning (e.g., it repeats defaults and the since pattern). At best it reinforces, but it does not compensate for any gap, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'what changed in BC curriculum since a given date', and explains it detects added, removed, and modified Big Ideas, Competencies, and Content items. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_course_history, which would imply course-specific historical detail, whereas this tool focuses on cross-crawl changes.

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 provides clear context for usage: it is for showing curriculum changes over time, with a date filter. It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires at least two crawls to have change data'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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