check_course_exists

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the check spans the whole catalog rather than one term, accepts a code format like 'CSCI-103', and returns true/false. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core purpose and scope front-loaded, followed by input format and return type. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple single-parameter, read-only existence check, the description fully covers scope, input format, and return type. Given the annotations and schema, no essential information is missing.

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?

The single parameter 'course' is fully described in the input schema with the same example, 'CSCI-103'. The description repeats this information rather than adding new semantic detail, so it provides little value beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a course code exists anywhere in the USC catalog.' It also clarifies scope by noting it is not limited to a single term, which clearly separates it from term-scoped lookup and search siblings.

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 communicates the intended use case: verifying whether a course code exists across the entire catalog. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_courses or get_course, but the boolean existence framing makes the appropriate context clear.

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