Full registration detail for one CRN

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source as 'public, live' and hints at non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is cached, missing some behavioral context that annotations would typically cover.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's value ('Everything Banner knows about one section'), followed by a purpose statement and a sibling clarification. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers return values (seats, waitlist, etc.) and distinguishes from related tools. It could mention that results are for a single CRN (implied in title) or note any pagination limits, but it is largely complete for this complexity level.

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 both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds purpose context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on the 'term' parameter beyond the default behavior). 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?

The description uses specific verbs and resources: 'Everything Banner knows about one section', listing concrete data types (seats, waitlist, prerequisites, restrictions). It answers a clear user question ('why can't I register') and distinguishes from siblings by noting meeting times come from other tools.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to course_availability or course_sections for meeting times, providing clear context on when this tool is not needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other registration-related siblings like search_courses, leaving some inference to the agent.

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