Archive: Course History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content about what the result contains, but says nothing about the truncation behavior implied by limit_terms or how the archive differs from live data. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and output contents, followed by the differentiating use case. No wasted text, though the quoted example could be folded in more tightly.

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?

For a read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and the comparative advantage over OBS. The only real gap is the unexplained default and semantics of limit_terms, which matters for interpreting a truncated history.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters; it mentions neither course_code nor limit_terms. The limit_terms parameter in particular is ambiguous (does it cap to the most recent N terms, or truncate arbitrarily?) and the description offers no help, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Term-by-term offering history for a course from the archive') and enumerates the returned dimensions (terms, sections, instructors, opening season). It explicitly distinguishes the tool from the OBS family ('which OBS cannot'), so an agent can pick it over obs_search_courses without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete motivating question ('is this course ever offered in the spring?') and rules out the OBS tools, which is implicit when-to-use guidance. However, it names no alternatives within the crowded archive_* family (archive_search_courses, archive_term_sections, archive_who_taught), leaving that routing to inference.

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