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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully confirms "Does not change the plan" in domain terms. It adds genuinely new behavioral detail — dates are in the learner's plan time zone and the exact status vocabulary returned — though it says nothing about auth or what happens when no plan exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the payload summary; the status enumeration and return list are dense but each item is informative. Slightly long as a single block, but no filler sentences.

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 annotations gap and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so well — statuses, next session, week view, counts, plan start, exam date, time zone. Only the empty/no-plan state is unaddressed.

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% and the schema's own program field already explains the omit-for-most-recent default and that results name their certification. The description adds nothing about the program parameter, so per the high-coverage baseline this is a 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads the learner's CertArc study calendar and enumerates exactly what comes back (dated entries with statuses, next session, this week, overdue, counts, plan start, exam date). The detailed return scope implicitly separates it from get_study_summary and get_next_study_action, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use this when the connected learner asks what to study today or this week, what is overdue, or what is on their CertArc calendar" gives explicit trigger conditions an agent can match against a user utterance. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to get_study_summary/get_next_study_action as alternatives.

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