wcps_query_crash_course

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool returns educational content rather than executing queries, making side effects clearly absent. It could more explicitly say 'does not run queries,' but the safety profile is evident from the wording.

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 tightly written sentences: the first explains what is returned, the second explains when to use it. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple, no-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and recommendation. It could name sibling tools like wcps_doc_chapters to avoid overlap, but the crash-course framing already distinguishes it well enough.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate because no parameters exist.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('a crash course on writing WCPS queries') and enumerates its contents (basic syntax, common operations, best practices). This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from execution-focused execute_wcps_query and chapter-level documentation 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?

The description gives explicit timing guidance: 'recommended to check this before executing queries.' It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the when-to-use context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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