program_courses

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does implicitly signal a read-only reference lookup and tells the agent which attributes come back (credits, term, prerequisites, teacher), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination, result size, or whether results are exhaustive versus filtered.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists categories and returned fields — no filler or repetition. It is tight to the point of being terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 3-optional-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description covers what the tool is and roughly what it returns, which is the minimum viable set. The critical gap is disambiguation: with siblings such as program_course_search, program_curriculum, and program_plan in the same family, an agent cannot tell from this text which one to call.

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%, so detail, keyword, and category are already documented in the schema; the description only echoes the category concept with example fragments (理工/人文/素质) and adds no format or interaction detail. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely — a general-education course catalog — and enumerates its three category buckets (理工基础 / 人文社科艺术 / 基础素质) plus the fields it carries (credits, term, prerequisites, instructor). No verb is used (it reads as a noun phrase rather than 'List/Get ...'), and it never contrasts itself with close siblings like program_course_search, program_curriculum, or canvas_courses.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of the situation that selects this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of program_course_search or program_curriculum as alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the browse-the-catalog path rather than the search path.

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