list_courses_by_ge

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that section filters are applied client-side and that results include sections, which helps the agent set expectations about response scope and filtering semantics beyond annotation metadata.

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 compact: two sentences front-load the primary purpose, then give the prerequisite discovery step, an illustrative example, and a summary of optional filters. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only listing tool with a fully documented 7-parameter schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, what prerequisites are needed, how to discover them, and what filters exist. A small gap is that it does not describe the shape or size of the returned course/section data, which would have been useful given there is no output schema, but this is a minor omission for a list operation.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining how geRequirementPrefix and geCategoryPrefix relate to each other and to list_ge_requirements, with a concrete example ('ACORELIT', 'HINQ'). This cross-tool parameter knowledge is genuinely useful and not present in the schema itself.

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-resource combination: 'List all courses in a term that satisfy a General Education (GE) category, with their sections.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_ge_requirements by noting that the GE prefixes are discovered through that sibling, and the course-listing intent is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete when-to-use context: it is for listing GE-satisfying courses, and it tells the agent that the required prefixes must be obtained via list_ge_requirements. It provides a concrete mapping example, but it does not explicitly state when an alternative like list_courses_by_program or search_courses would be preferred, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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