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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description adds value by detailing pagination, the two-mode behavior, filtering logic, and the fields returned. It does not mention error handling for invalid inputs, but overall provides substantial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear paragraphs, an example at the end, and no superfluous sentences. Each sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior: two modes, pagination, filtering, and the data fields in results. The example further clarifies usage. This is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the two-mode use of standard_set, clarifying grade as 0 for kindergarten, and specifying that query matches code, title, and description. It also provides defaults and max for page and page_size. With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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 clearly states it browses the public Legends of Learning curriculum taxonomy, with two distinct modes (list standard sets or list standards within a set). It distinguishes from sibling tools (legends_get_game, legends_search_games) that focus on games, not curriculum taxonomy.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each mode (with or without standard_set) and explains how the query and grade parameters work. It also hints at integration with legends_search_games by mentioning using standard ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to siblings.

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