get_user_progress_per_course

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx, and it details return and error behavior including specific HTTP status meanings. This is substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-organized with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly redundant in the opening sentences ('Get user progress per course' followed by 'Returns information about the user progress...'), but overall every major section 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete: it covers endpoint, purpose, behavioral guarantees, auth, rate limiting, retry behavior, error semantics, and usage context. No critical operational information is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented with their types and meanings. The description only restates that the user id and course id are used, adding no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 operation (read-only lookup of per-course user progress), the exact resource via endpoint path, and the key output detail: a breakdown per learning activity. It also names related reporting tools, so an agent can place it among siblings even though the distinction is not spelled out explicitly.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting' and 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' It lists related reporting tools, but does not provide a precise decision rule for choosing this tool over get_user_progress or get_analytics_course.

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