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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: only published lessons are included, and lessons come with their keys, which is useful because no output schema is provided.

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 with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides practical routing guidance while the phrase 'with their keys' earns its place by signaling expected output content.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a complete picture: what is listed, what is returned, and when to use it. Nothing essential 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%, and the single optional module parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and default behavior. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the ground-school curriculum') and specifies the returned shape: modules, published lessons, and keys. It also names the downstream sibling get_lesson, helping distinguish this listing tool from lesson retrieval.

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?

Three explicit trigger contexts are given: orienting before get_lesson, answering 'what does the course cover', and planning study next steps. It does not explicitly contrast with search_faa_knowledge or get_practice_question, so it stops short of a full 5.

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