get_course_details

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates this is a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of rate limits, response format, or that no changes occur. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal value.

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?

Extremely concise—a single sentence with no redundancy. It states the purpose without fluff. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes to help the agent set expectations. It also lacks differentiation from sibling tools that retrieve course-related data (e.g., syllabus, content overview). The single parameter is simple, but the absence of return details and usage context makes it incomplete for effective tool selection.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter (course_identifier) with a clear description and type. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'course', and indicates it returns 'detailed information'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_course_structure or get_syllabus by being generic, but could be more specific about what 'detailed information' includes. Still, it is clear and 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_course_structure, get_syllabus, or get_course_content_overview. The description only states what it does, not the context or criteria for selection. Missing exclusions or alternative references.

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