read_course_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description still adds meaningful behavioral context: the university/provider receives identity, role, and course claims; the response is an initial partial page or anonymous public course info; and the tool does not join groups or edit the service. This exceeds what annotations alone convey and contains no 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 three well-organized sentences that front-load the action and resource, then explain the behavioral mechanism and output, and close with a crucial non-effect ('Does not join groups or edit the service'). No sentence is wasted.

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 only two required parameters, no output schema, and a non-trivial LTI handoff behavior, the description covers what the agent needs: what is read, what happens during handoff, what kind of response to expect, and what side effects do not occur. The output form is described well enough given the lack of an output schema.

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 50%: courseId has a description, but service does not. The description partially compensates by naming the two service values ('Study Guide' and 'Group Self Enrollment') and framing the courseId as an observed course link identifier. It could more explicitly tie courseId to the 'from another tool' schema hint, but the overall meaning is sufficiently conveyed.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('observed Study Guide or Group Self Enrollment course link'), and a distinctive mechanism ('normal LTI sign-in handoff'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like read_course_page and get_study_guide by noting the observed-link LTI flow and the source/course-match result.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when reading an observed Study Guide or Group Self Enrollment course link via the normal sign-in handoff. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route to this tool over plain course-page readers.

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