Get course details + syllabus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety is clear. The description adds value by revealing that the tool returns 'full syllabus text', 'term', and 'current score', which are behavioral traits not inferable from annotations alone. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 19-word sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key contents. Every word earns its place, with no filler. The critical guidance about course_id source is front-loaded in the same sentence.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and is a simple read operation, the description adequately covers the basics. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the tool returns only the current score or historical grades, and whether the syllabus text is complete or truncated. For a tool with this complexity, a 3 is reasonable but leaves some ambiguity.

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 100%, and the parameter course_id has a clear schema description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema by noting the source of course_id, which is helpful context but not essential for parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 the resource 'one course's details', and specifies the included fields: full syllabus text, term, and current score. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like canvas_list_courses by indicating it retrieves a single course's detail versus listing courses, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from canvas_get_grades which also deals with scores.

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 tells the agent that course_id comes from canvas_list_courses, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like canvas_read_syllabus (which is a sibling that might overlap in reading syllabus content) or when not to use it. The guidance is minimal but functional.

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