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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: per-topic practice scores appear conditionally, only when exactly one course is in scope. It stops short of describing result size or pagination, but the output schema is present to carry return-shape details.

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?

Three tight sentences: the primary behavior first, then the two sibling exclusions. Every sentence carries routing or scoping information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema covering return values and full parameter documentation, plus clear sibling routing, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. The only residual gap is that the description never mentions the no-op nature of active_only/recent_only, leaving the agent to discover that from the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above that by explaining the semantic consequence of course_id scoping on the returned payload. It does not address the unusual active_only and recent_only no-op parameters, though the schema already documents them as echoed values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource set: 'Load the learner's profile, followed courses, and projects.' It then explicitly names what this tool does NOT cover (project internals, per-topic mastery), so an agent can distinguish it from get-project-state and get-course-mastery without opening any 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?

It gives explicit routing in both directions: use get-project-state for what is inside a project, and use get-course-mastery when per-topic practice scores span more than one course. The condition that selects each alternative is stated, not implied.

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