Course reviews

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description isn't needed for safety. It adds real value beyond them: the response includes a star histogram, reviewer names are deliberately omitted (privacy), and review text is untrusted third-party content that must not be followed as instructions. Pagination behavior is hinted via the 'Next' pointer rather than explained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the safety caveat, then the follow-up pointer. No waste, though "Next: mkh_course" is tersely telegraphed and could be slightly clearer.

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 return-shape burden and does so by naming the fields and the histogram. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only paging/return-size expectations are thin.

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 coverage is 100%, with limit, offset and course_id all documented including the next_offset paging convention and id provenance. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: learner reviews of a course, and enumerates the returned fields (stars 1-5, text, date, instructor reply) plus the star histogram. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like mkh_course or mkh_teacher, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Next: mkh_course" implies a workflow step (view course details after reading reviews), which is some guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus mkh_course, mkh_search or mkh_browse, and no exclusions.

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