get_user_progress

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations: explains server-side auth injection, throttling to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retry behavior on 429/5xx, default pagination limit of 20, and detailed error response handling with HTTP status and API payload meanings. No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized with short labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when), and every sentence adds useful information. The endpoint and READ-ONLY marker are front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return format, errors, auth, throttling, and pagination. All essential aspects of calling a read-only paginated API are present, and the related tools are named for further routing. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds functional meaning by explaining 'results are paged — walk them with page and size each page with items_per_page', and mentions the default limit of 20. This is a modest improvement over the schema's field descriptions, enough to merit a 4.

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 clear action and resource: 'Get user progress' for a specified user across all enrolled courses, including per-learning-activity breakdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user_progress_per_course by scoping to all courses and by being read-only, so an agent can tell it apart.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting', 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool', and names related reporting tools. It lacks a precise condition for choosing get_user_progress_per_course over this tool, but the read-only vs. write split and general context are clear.

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