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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata and implies it does not return the lesson tree by pointing to the sibling. It also lists specific return fields, adding behavioral context beyond a simple 'get' call, though it omits error handling or auth details.

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 no filler. The first sentence defines purpose and key fields, the second gives a precise alternative. It is front-loaded and efficient, with every word earning 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and alternative but lacks details on response format, error handling, or parameter specifics. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for an agent requiring comprehensive context.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. It only implies that the id identifies the course, but fails to clarify the special UUID patterns or how to obtain the id, thus not compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource 'one course' and lists the metadata fields (description, instructor, tags, flags). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool hivelearn_get_course_structure, making the 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?

It provides direct usage guidance by stating 'For the lesson tree use hivelearn_get_course_structure instead,' which clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which alternative to choose. This is an explicit exclusion and alternative reference.

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