Read a course syllabus (inline or attached file)

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by revealing that when the syllabus is an attached file (PDF/Word), the tool performs download and text extraction. This behavioral detail is not inferable from annotations alone.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second efficiently adds nuance about handling two syllabus formats and the extraction process. It is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 description lacks details about the return format (e.g., plain text vs. Markdown) and does not mention error cases like missing syllabus. Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of annotations, it is minimally complete but leaves some gaps for an agent.

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%—the input schema already describes both parameters (course_id and max_chars) adequately. The description adds no extra semantic value about the parameters, so a baseline score 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 specifies the action 'Get' and the resource 'course's syllabus as text'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating that it handles both inline syllabus text and attached PDF/Word files, which is a unique capability among the listed tools.

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 implies usage by covering both common syllabus formats, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like canvas_read_file or other content retrieval tools. There are no exclusions or comparative guidance.

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