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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the list is prerequisite-ordered rather than arbitrary, and each entry carries a summary plus the slug that get_grammar_point consumes, which tells the agent this call feeds a follow-up lookup.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what the tool returns, why the order matters, when to use it and when not to. The distinguishing ordering detail is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 return-shape duty and does so by naming the two fields the agent will receive (summary and slug) and the tool the slug feeds. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile and a fully documented schema, nothing needed to call it correctly or consume the result 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (level 1-6, count 1-20 default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or defaults; mentioning the 'slug' concerns the return payload, not the inputs. Baseline 3 applies 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 ('List the grammar points of an HSK level') plus the distinctive ordering semantics ('in the order GraphChinese teaches them, which respects what each point needs first'). It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (get_grammar_point), so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 both sides explicitly: use it 'when the user asks which sentence patterns to learn first, or what grammar to study at their level', and 'Do not use it to explain one pattern (use get_grammar_point)'. The alternative and the condition that selects it are spelled out.

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