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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: source pages are public fekrestan.com content, output is Persian (fa-IR, RTL), and the audience is parents/teachers. It adds the useful caveat that pacing is mastery-based rather than age-based, framing what the roadmap actually means.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and its contents, followed by filter behavior, interpretive note, output locale, and a scope exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers contents, audience, source, output language, and scope boundaries. Return-format detail is partial (it says Persian RTL text but not structure), though no output schema exists, so a small gap remains.

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 single 'grade' parameter is documented in the schema as school grade 3–9. The description only restates that the filter is optional, contributing nothing beyond the schema; with one optional parameter this is the expected baseline.

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 names the resource (multi-year roadmap) and enumerates its contents — phases with grades, stations, duration, focus, plus milestones and track outcomes — so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, leaving the distinction from get_station_overview and get_site_overview to be inferred.

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?

Usage context is clear: for parents and teachers seeking long-term planning, with an explicit negative scope ('No answers to in-app exercises') that steers exercise-solving requests toward get_how_to_solve or get_exam_prep_overview. It stops short of naming those alternatives directly, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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