Get BIT101 course reviews

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this is an aggregating read operation pulling several data categories, but it does not disclose details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or the reach of 'historical score data'.

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 compact sentence front-loads the action and lists the key result categories with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 read-only annotations, a full output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of guidance for choosing this tool over sibling tools, though that is more a usage-rule concern than a completeness gap.

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 course_id and comment_pages are already well documented with types, defaults, and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('aggregate') and enumerates the returned resources ('course metadata, teachers, reviews, and historical score data'), making the tool's focus clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_courses or get_scores, but the resource description is sufficiently unambiguous.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as search_courses, get_post, or get_scores. The description only states what it aggregates, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and title.

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