fc course lessons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'display order' result characteristic, which is genuinely useful beyond annotations, but the controller/route lines are provenance metadata rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and wastes nothing, but the trailing 'Controller' and 'Route source' lines are developer-oriented provenance that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Useful content is roughly one of three lines.

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 full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is return shape (pagination, lesson fields), which matters somewhat since no output schema exists, but the ordering and scoping behavior are stated.

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 schema already documents course_id, topic_id and account. The description only echoes the section-narrowing role of one parameter and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns the lessons of a course') plus the ordering guarantee and the optional section narrowing. It is clearly distinguishable from fc_get_course and fc_course_students, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 'optionally narrowed to one section' implies when to pass topic_id, which is real usage guidance. However there is no explicit when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to an alternative tool for related needs.

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