courses_version

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 does communicate the core behavior — retrieving the Courses module's API version — which is a safe, read-only informational operation. However, it does not disclose the response format, whether authentication is required, or error/failure behavior, which are clear gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. 'Get Courses (Kurzy) module API version.' communicates the module identity and the operation efficiently, and the size is appropriately matched to the trivial complexity of the tool.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells an agent which module's version this is and what operation it performs. The only missing context is what the caller should do with the version value and what the return payload looks like, but given the tool's minimal complexity, these are minor omissions.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty input schema is fully consistent with the description, which implies a call with no arguments. There is nothing for the description to add, and none is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Courses (Kurzy) module API version'), and the parenthetical '(Kurzy)' plus module naming disambiguates it from sibling version tools like attendance_version, lessons_version, and payments_version. It is clear, though it relies on naming rather than an explicit contrast with those siblings.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling *_version tools, no mention of what the version is useful for (e.g., compatibility checks or verifying API availability), and no exclusions or prerequisites. With four module version tools among the siblings, an agent must infer the selection rule from the module name alone.

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