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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states 'Verbatim; never generated', signaling the data is source-faithful rather than synthesized, but it says nothing about permissions, caching, or mutation risk (a read). Meaningful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single dense line that front-loads the tag, then the resource, then the contents and the only parameter. No filler; every clause earns its place, though the bracketed tag and 'K-3 tutor' framing add a slightly cryptic flavor.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does the work of describing the return ('unit count, tracks, ordered unit briefs'), which is sufficient for a simple single-parameter read. It stops short of covering ordering guarantees or size, but the core call information is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented 'subject' parameter. It does: '?subject= selects the path (default 'read')' clarifies both the parameter's effect and its default value, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema. Format constraints (maxLength 4000) remain unstated.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Coach overview') and enumerates its contents (unit count, tracks, ordered unit briefs), which distinguishes it from single-unit coach_unit and listing sibling coach_subjects. The purpose is clear from the description alone, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 '[WALK · internal]' tag and the note that ?subject= selects the path give implied usage context and a default. However, it never states when to reach for coach_overview versus coach_unit, coach_next, or coach_subjects, so the agent must infer the routing.

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