get_course_content

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety. The description adds a non-obvious side effect: it indexes titles/descriptions locally, which an agent should know before invoking. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail the local index mechanics or whether it can be re-run safely (idempotent hint covers that).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary retrieval purpose, followed by the side-effect caveat. No filler words.

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 one-param read tool, the description covers the main result and side effect. However, it doesn't connect the local index behavior to sibling tools like search_course_materials or get_index_status, leaving an agent to infer the purpose of the indexing side effect.

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 coverage is 100% and the courseId parameter has a clear description ('Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool'). The tool description adds no further parameter detail, which is fine given high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: fetching the nested course outline, lecture topics, document IDs, and recording links. The verb 'get' plus the enumerated resource makes the purpose specific, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from similar course-reading siblings like read_course_page or get_study_guide.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The local indexing side effect is mentioned but not tied to when this tool should be used versus search_course_materials or get_index_status.

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