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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the structure of the return value (raw doc, summary fields, wind_down coverage), which is more transparent than just saying 'get progress'. No contradictions; the read-only nature is preserved.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return...') and then packs all key details without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and it is well-structured with the dash and parentheticals for clarity, not wasted words.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, but it adds valuable semantic context (e.g., what wind_down coverage means) and clarifies the tool's scope (per-module progress, boss status). It lacks operational details like how to pass the course identifier or auth token usage, but for a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema has two parameters (course, auth_token) with zero schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not compensate: it only mentions 'for a course' without explaining the format or meaning of the course parameter, and completely ignores auth_token. An agent must guess how to populate these fields, making this dimension severely lacking.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('learner's progress for a course'). It enumerates the exact components returned (raw doc, summary, per-module data, boss status, percent, position, wind_down coverage), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_recap or get_artifact.

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 context for when to use this tool: when a detailed view of a learner's course progress is needed, including raw data and a summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct output details make the intended use case obvious relative to siblings.

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