fc get course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the response is the editable (not public) representation, and some fields (completion count, average progress) are returned conditionally 'when it has students'. Auth/scope details for the account parameter are left unstated.

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 payload description is front-loaded in a single dense sentence with no waste. The trailing 'Controller:'/'Route source:' line is code-level provenance that contributes little to tool selection, but it is short and clearly separated from the functional description.

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 single-record fetch with no output schema, the description adequately documents what comes back, including the conditional student metrics. Safety is covered by annotations, so the only real gap is where the course data is scoped from (account/auth context).

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 both parameters (including the non-obvious 'private account profile label' distinction) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing further about parameter meaning, 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Returns one course') and enumerates the payload (lock screen configuration, category ids, completion count, average progress), which cleanly separates it from fc_list_courses and fc_course_students. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'editable form' framing signals an admin/edit-context fetch of a single record, which is reasonable guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to fc_list_courses for bulk retrieval.

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