get_study_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral specifics beyond annotations: it 'Verifies exact code/year and reports output limits' and states 'No login or LTI identity handoff,' providing useful operational details without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds essential information: what it reads, what it returns, verification behavior, and auth requirements. No wasted 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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, content returned, verification, output limits, and auth requirements. It does not describe the return structure, but that's unnecessary without an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate for parameter clarity. It explicitly mentions 'exact course code and academic year' but does not explain the 'language' parameter or the patterns/constraints. The description partially clarifies the key inputs but leaves some semantic gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read the official public Study Guide' for a specific course code and academic year, and lists the content it returns. It implicitly distinguishes from search_study_guide by emphasizing 'exact' code/year, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it requires an exact course code and academic year, and notes that no login is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_study_guide for cases where the exact code/year is unknown, leaving that to inference.

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