Get module details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the returned fields and the critical behavior that omitting version resolves the current version. It also surfaces the usedInPrograms list as a key output. It could mention caching or error behavior, but the schema's refresh parameter already hints at data sourcing.

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 front-loaded with the action and object, then packs field details, use case, and version behavior into two additional sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description provides a comprehensive view of the tool's output in the absence of an output schema, enumerating most return fields. It also gives the intended use case and default version resolution, making it sufficient for the tool's simplicity. Sibling tools add context, but the description stands alone well.

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%, providing clear descriptions for moduleNumber, version, and refresh. The description mostly re-states the version default already present in the schema ('If version is omitted, resolves the current version') and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a module version's full description') and enumerates exact fields returned, including the unique 'usedInPrograms' list. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on detailed module data rather than degree program searches or module 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to answer what other majors could take this module.' It also clarifies the version default behavior. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is strong enough for guidance.

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