unsw_fetch_course_outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: if only course_code is given, it will search first and pick the first of multiple semester versions. It also clarifies the scope of the returned outline content, but does not cover edge cases or error handling.

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?

Two dense sentences with the main action front-loaded ('取一门课的完整官方大纲'), followed by a useful bullet-like enumeration of contents. Every phrase earns its place, including the emphasized AI-usage note for each assignment.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the key components of an outline and explains both invocation modes (coid vs course_code). This gives the agent enough context to set expectations and select the correct parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches semantics by explaining the either/or relationship between coid and course_code ('和 coid 二选一') and the search fallback when only course_code is provided, which is not fully explicit in the schema alone.

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 action '取一门课的完整官方大纲' and enumerates the specific contents (assessments, learning objectives, weekly schedule, academic integrity). It distinguishes itself from the sibling unsw_find_course_outline by being the full-outline retrieval tool, while referencing coid from that tool.

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?

Provides clear parameter-selection guidance: '给 coid 直接取；只给课程代码的话会先搜一次' tells the agent when to supply coid vs course_code and the fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against the sibling unsw_find_course_outline, so it lacks an explicit when-not/alternatives statement.

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