Archive: Course Catalog

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: it discloses that absent fields are surfaced under 'missing_fields' rather than fabricated, and that 'coverage' distinguishes 'course_absent_from_catalog' from 'branch_catalog_missing' – non-obvious semantics an agent could not get from the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first declares content, the second and third clarify data-integrity semantics. The field enumeration is dense but front-loaded and readable; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description usefully clarifies the two non-obvious output concepts (missing_fields, coverage). The main gap is the unexplained course_code parameter, which is the only real incompleteness.

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% for the single parameter, and the description says nothing about course_code – not its format, case sensitivity, or whether it must be an active/archived code. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 opening phrase 'Catalog entry for a course from the archive' states the resource and scope, and then enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like archive_course_history or archive_search_courses, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many archive_* siblings. The agent must infer from the field list that this is the full-catalog-lookup tool rather than a search or history tool.

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