Public Course Schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and requires no login, which covers safety and authentication. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or error conditions, which would add completeness.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second adds relevant detail. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values; it still mentions key fields (CRN, instructor, sessions, capacity, enrolled count, prerequisite links). It is adequate for a simple fetch tool, though it could note any semester constraints or result limits.

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 compensate. It clarifies the department_code parameter by mentioning 'for a department' and implies crn via output fields, but does not explain program_type. This adds partial meaning but not full coverage for all three parameters.

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 'Read', the resource 'public OBS course schedule', and the scope 'for a department'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'No login required' and 'public', making its purpose 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?

The description implies usage context (retrieving public schedule without authentication) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like get_public_course_prerequisites or get_course_info. No exclusions are stated.

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