get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety and reproducibility profile is covered. The description adds a summary of the returned content, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Given the annotations, a 3 reflects modest added value.

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, front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of returned fields. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's output scope.

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 retrieval tool with full parameter documentation, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the resource and the kind of details returned, which is sufficient for calling the tool. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit routing from search_courses, but that is covered by the schema.

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% and the single parameter date_id is fully documented with a format example. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the resource ('one course date') and enumerates the returned fields (content, requirements, certificate, cost, funding options, provider contact). It implicitly distinguishes from search_courses by saying 'one course date', but does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the retrieval scope. A specific verb like 'retrieve' is missing, yet the 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention search_courses or explain that this is the follow-up step after finding a date_id, leaving that context entirely to the input schema. Without opening the schema, an agent would not know how to obtain the required ID.

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