Browse courses with filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that the site has no price filter. However, the clause 'no price filter or sort on the site' reads as if sorting is unavailable while the schema exposes a 'sorting' parameter (manual/popular/new/rate), which could make an agent skip a supported capability. Net: some added value plus one confusing statement.

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?

Three short lines with the capability first and the routing/exclusion notes second; nothing is padding. The only weak sentence is the 'no sort' clause, which spends words creating ambiguity rather than removing it.

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 10-parameter, zero-required, fully-schema-documented browse tool with no output schema, this is close to complete: scope, filters, prerequisites and alternatives are all present. Minor omissions are the pagination/total-count behaviour and a clear statement of what 'sorting' actually does.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the provenance of category_slug and organization_ids (which upstream tools supply them) and by sizing the corpus (~5700). It does not clarify the ambiguous 'sorting' vs 'no sort' point, which is the remaining gap.

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 ('List courses') plus the scope ('a category, or all ~5700') and enumerates the filter families it accepts. It also names the siblings it is not (mkh_search for text, mkh_cheapest for price), so an agent can route 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?

Explicit when-not guidance: 'No text query here (use mkh_search)' and 'for price use mkh_cheapest'. It also tells the agent where prerequisite identifiers come from ('category slugs from mkh_categories, publisher ids from mkh_organizations'), which blocks the most likely invocation error.

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