List BC Courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return structure ('List of courses with subject, grade, name, and URL'), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or error behaviors, but these are minor given the read-only idempotent nature.

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 and well-organized: a one-line purpose, then an Args block, then Returns. The main purpose is front-loaded. It repeats some schema information, but this is acceptable for quick scanning. There is no fluff, so it earns a strong score.

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 tool is a simple list operation with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: the discovery use-case, filter options, and return fields. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent can confidently invoke this tool without ambiguity.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (e.g., grade '0=Kindergarten, 1-12' and subject with an enum of valid slugs). The description's Args section restates these without adding new meaning, so it does not enhance beyond the schema. Hence the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'List' and the resource 'all available courses in the BC curriculum database (K-12)', immediately distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_course_curriculum' and 'search_curriculum'. It also frames the tool's role as a discovery step before querying specific curriculum data, which is unique among the siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover what courses are available before querying specific curriculum data', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not name any alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5 which requires explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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