get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: 'no login required' tells the agent no authentication step is needed, and the enumerated result fields compensate for the absent output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the lookup modes and followed by the returned fields; nothing extraneous. The German and English halves duplicate the same content, which is a small redundancy but plausibly intentional for a bilingual audience.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers identifier forms, returned fields, and the auth/read-only posture. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the accepted title/search-name/unit-ID forms with an example. The description restates the same three identifier modes without adding format rules or ambiguity handling, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Zeigt eine HISinOne-Veranstaltung' / 'Show a HISinOne course', and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (full name, unique search term, numeric ID). It also lists what is returned (type, semester, lecturer, dates, rooms), which separates it in spirit from search_courses, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'eindeutigem Suchbegriff' / 'unique search term' implies this is the lookup path when an identifier is unambiguous, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer search_courses or of what to do when the name is ambiguous. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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