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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the payload (progress, exam date, days remaining, access tier and end day) and by naming scope boundaries that annotations do not capture. It stops short of edge cases such as a learner with no recorded activity or how access tiers are derived.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the activation condition, then payload, then exclusions. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the highest-value constraints are stated last as a hard stop.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return contents precisely, including the access tier values (Paid, Trial, None) and the end date. With a single fully-described optional enum parameter and read-only annotations, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description for `program` already explains the omit-for-most-recent default and the multi-certification readout. The description only restates "for one certification," adding no format or precedence detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 resource and scope: aggregate sprint progress, target exam date, days-to-exam, and access tier for one certification. That content set clearly separates it from siblings like get_readiness or get_results, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent knows what it will learn, but differentiation relies on inference from the returned fields.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("when the connected learner asks about their CertArc progress") plus two hard exclusions: never prices or payments, never for another person. These boundaries are exactly the kind of disambiguation an agent needs to avoid drifting into billing or cross-learner queries. Alternatives are not named, but the when/when-not pair is unambiguous.

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