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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: locked lessons return only public metadata. It says nothing about authentication requirements or what the partial metadata actually contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the qualifier second. It is arguably over-terse for a five-parameter tool, but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries some burden for return shape; it discloses the locked-lesson truncation but not the structure of a normal lesson body or its blocks. For a five-parameter read tool with rich schema coverage, this is adequate but leaves the return contract under-explained.

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 all five parameters (including view, share, token, tracking) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a lesson') and adds an access-scope qualifier (locked lessons yield public metadata only). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_premium_lesson, so an agent must infer the split between them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The schema hints that slug comes from list_lessons or search, but the description itself never routes the agent or explains when this tool is the right choice versus get_premium_lesson.

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