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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful domain context: it draws on Fretwork's 10-stage curriculum and stage 0 is a first-timer. It doesn't describe output shape in detail, but the 'daily routine + 4-week plan' framing hints at it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then the sizing inputs, then the curriculum reference. No filler.

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 four optional params, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description gives enough to call correctly. The only gap is a fuller description of the returned plan structure, which matters slightly more because no output schema exists.

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 stage ladder, goal enum, and defaults are all documented in-schema. The description's mention of 'stage 0 is for someone who has never played' restates the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 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: builds a daily practice routine plus a 4-week focus plan, parameterized by level, minutes, and goal. Clearly a planning tool, distinguishable from lookup siblings like find_songs or get_chord_shapes without opening the 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?

The description establishes clear context (player level, daily minutes, goal) that implies when to call it, and no sibling overlaps with plan generation. It stops short of stating any exclusion or when-not condition.

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