Get sections and meeting times for a course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only lists the data returned and cites a data source ('Purdue.io'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, expected performance, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The agent is left to assume it is safe without explicit confirmation.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key data items (CRNs, section types, etc.) and includes the source. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. Perfectly concise for a simple query tool.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity (3 parameters, 2 required), the description lists the returned fields but does not specify the structure, ordering, or error handling. It is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks completeness for fully autonomous use without further instructions.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely restates the tool's scope. It does not clarify formats, defaults, or relationships between parameters beyond what is already in 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'CRNs, section types, meeting days/times, rooms, and instructors for a course in a given term', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'section_details' or 'search_courses', so it misses the opportunity to guide selection.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as for a single section lookup (where section_details might be better) or for course search (where search_courses is appropriate). No context or exclusions are given.

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