fc list courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: the result set is permission-scoped to courses the user may manage, and each item carries student/section/lesson counts. It doesn't explain pagination mechanics despite claiming 'paginated', which keeps this from a 5.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, but the two trailing lines citing 'CourseAdminController@getCourses' and the route file/line are internal implementation trivia that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Roughly a third of the description is noise.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes what each returned course contains, and there are no required parameters to explain. However, it advertises pagination while the schema exposes no page/cursor/limit parameter and the description gives no paging instructions, and filter semantics for search/status/sort_by are left entirely to 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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, and the description adds no per-parameter meaning (nothing about search matching, status values, or sort behavior). Baseline 3 is correct when structured fields carry the full parameter burden.

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 paginated list of courses') plus a meaningful scope ('the current user may manage') and the payload contents (student count, section and lesson totals). This clearly separates it from resource-adjacent siblings like fc_list_spaces and fc_get_course, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer fc_get_course or fc_course_students, and no mention of how the filter parameters (search, status, topic_slug) should be used. The only usage signal is the implied 'may manage' permission scope, which the agent must infer.

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