connects_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ID source but does not disclose behavior around pagination, the meaning of the section choices, or what each section returns. It provides no contradiction and some contextual value, hence a mid-range score.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning.

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?

Annotations are rich and an output schema exists, lessening the burden on the description. However, the description does not clarify that the 'section' parameter selects which part of the course to read or how limit/offset apply. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description bears responsibility for explaining parameters. It only clarifies that course_id comes from connects_courses, but says nothing about the 'section' enum, 'limit', or 'offset'. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but pagination semantics and section selection are left undocumented.

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 ('Read'), names the resource ('a Connects course section'), and identifies where the course ID comes from ('connects_courses'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as connects_courses and other connects_* tools.

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 description implies a clear workflow: first obtain a course ID from connects_courses, then call connects_course to read a section. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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