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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint; the description adds useful context beyond them: 'free' (no cost/credit burn) and a preview of the returned fields plus default/max limits. It does not discuss pagination or ordering guarantees beyond 'newest lessons'.

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?

Purpose and trigger phrases are front-loaded, then return shape, then parameter notes — a sensible order. It is slightly repetitive, quoting trigger phrases in parentheses and then paraphrasing them again in the second sentence.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (id, title, status, minutes, link) and the filter options. Nothing critical is missing for a simple filtered-list read tool, though ordering/pagination detail is absent.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the same enum values and the default 20/max 50 limits, adding only the framing word 'narrow' — marginal value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List this account's recent lessons') with clear scope ('this account's'), which separates it from get_lesson and create_lesson. It names the return fields, but never refers to sibling tools by name, so differentiation relies on the verb alone.

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?

Gives concrete invocation triggers ('my videos', 'what did I make', 'continue an earlier one', 'waiting for approval') and a clear condition ('user refers to their own earlier work'). It does not state when NOT to use it or explicitly point to get_lesson for a single known lesson.

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