List pinned eLearn courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, handles pagination, or what error behaviors might occur. The description stays at the surface level and does not go beyond what the name implies.

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, efficient sentence that directly conveys the purpose without fluff. It is appropriately concise and well-structured for a simple list operation.

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 tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'limit' and 'search' parameters, does not mention authentication requirements, and provides no information about the response format or potential errors. Even for a simple listing tool, these gaps could lead to incorrect invocation (e.g., passing an overly large search string or misinterpreting the ordering).

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage) and the description does not mention the parameters 'limit' or 'search' at all. An agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are somewhat self-explanatory but not fully defined. The description adds no value in explaining semantics, constraints, or how these parameters affect results.

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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('courses pinned by the current user'), and adds ordering criteria ('by pin date and course name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like elearn_list_courses by specifying 'pinned by the current user'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as elearn_list_courses or elearn_search_content. The description implies it is for pinned courses only, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention any prerequisites like authentication. Contextual signals like sibling tool names could help, but the description itself offers no routing.

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