Course details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes genuinely useful domain context beyond that: prices are in Toman, and the full/content_only/upgrade tiers are defined so the agent can interpret the response correctly. This is real added value but doesn't address coverage gaps or pagination.

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?

Extremely dense and front-loaded: the return contents come first, then pricing semantics, then next-step routing. The telegraphic fragment style ('Prices are Toman.') is efficient, though the opening field list is a bare noun phrase that reads slightly like a label rather than a sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the returned fields and defining the pricing tiers. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 the single course_id parameter already documents its source (mkh_search or mkh_browse) and an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb-less but unambiguous statement of resource and scope ('One course') and enumerates the exact fields returned (prices, discount end, level, hours, teachers, publisher, prerequisites, FAQ). It also names the natural follow-on siblings mkh_curriculum and mkh_reviews, which separates it from the list/search-oriented siblings without restating their purpose.

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 'Next: mkh_curriculum, mkh_reviews' line gives a clear navigation hint for what to call after this tool. However, it never states when to choose mkh_course versus mkh_search or mkh_browse, nor that course_id must first come from a search/browse call in prose terms.

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