Related courses

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results arrive as grouped categories (per-instructor, recommended, similar) and are shaped like fr_search_courses cards, which tells the agent how to consume the output. It stops short of stating what happens for an unknown slug or whether groups can be empty.

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 sentences: the first defines the operation and its output categories, the second handles input provenance and next-step routing. Every clause carries information and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value (grouped cards matching fr_search_courses), which is the main thing an agent would otherwise lack. Minor gaps remain around empty/unknown-slug behavior, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 (slug format and URL form, limit range 1-6 with default 6) are fully documented there. The description only adds provenance for `slug`, and its mention of grouping indirectly explains the schema's 'per group' wording but does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get courses related to one Faradars course') and immediately enumerates the three relation types returned (same instructor, recommended next steps, similar topics), which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish it from fr_search_courses or fr_learning_paths without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where `slug` comes from (fr_search_courses or fr_course) and routes follow-up work: fr_course for details, fr_compare_courses to weigh candidates. This is concrete when-to-use/when-to-switch guidance tied to named alternatives.

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