Quera bootcamps

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 bar is low; the description adds real context beyond them — default scope excludes closed cohorts, the slug mode returns materially richer data, and prices are denominated in Toman. It does not discuss pagination or result-size limits, which matters somewhat for an openWorld listing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and payload, then a compact mode-by-mode breakdown and a one-line currency note; almost no waste. Minor friction from 'or get one in full' appearing before the modes are explained, which forces a short backtrack.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, describing both the list payload and the full detail payload. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to choose a mode and call it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does add value by spelling out what the slug mode returns (syllabus, prerequisites, instructors, installments, FAQ) and by framing include_closed as 'adds past ones', but it adds little on slug format beyond the schema's example.

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 Quera's intensive paid bootcamps') plus a second mode ('get one in full'), and enumerates the returned fields (price, dates, seats). An agent can distinguish the list form from the single-item form without opening the 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 splits the two usage modes: 'Without slug: cohorts you can register for now' and 'With slug: syllabus by week...'. It also names the modifier that changes scope ('include_closed adds past ones'). It stops short of naming alternatives among siblings (e.g. qr_courses) for when a bootcamp is the wrong resource.

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