get_course_content_overview

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a read-only operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds that it returns a 'comprehensive overview' including pages, modules, and syllabus, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the response is aggregated or how the include flags affect the output structure, but given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff 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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, all documented in schema) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is fairly complete. It doesn't need to explain return values since there is no output schema, but it could benefit from a note about the aggregated nature of the response. However, for a read-only overview tool with good schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the concept of 'comprehensive overview' and mentions the content types, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The include_* flags are self-explanatory from the schema, so the description adds minimal value here.

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 tool provides a comprehensive overview of course content including pages, modules, and syllabus. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('course content overview'), and the mention of specific content types distinguishes it from siblings like get_course_details and get_course_structure, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those.

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 for retrieving an overview of course content, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_course_details, get_course_structure, or the individual get_syllabus, list_pages, list_modules tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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