get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by disclosing that the section filters are applied client-side and by enumerating the returned record fields.

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 focused sentences lead with the core action, then the return contents, then the filter behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what will be returned, including course metadata and section-level details. Combined with the detailed input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already covers 83% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by grouping days, startAfter, startBefore, and openOnly as optional section filters and clarifying that they are applied client-side, which helps the agent understand how those parameters behave.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('full record for a single USC course in a term'), and the lookup key ('course code'). The 'single' scoping clearly separates it from the sibling search/list tools even though no sibling names are given.

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 intended use is clear: when the agent needs the complete record for one known course in a known term, with optional client-side section filtering. It does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the top level.

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