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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact return shape (Text & Image as Markdown with a block_id, other blocks as type + title only), the ordering guarantee, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access).

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?

Front-loads the purpose ('Lesson content as blocks') and every sentence carries return-format information that has no other home. Slightly dense/packed but not padded.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining the return value in detail and notes the auth requirement. It is nearly complete; only the lack of guidance on when this tool is preferred over sibling lesson tools is a gap.

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 schema already documents both course_id ('from list_courses') and lesson_id ('from get_curriculum'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the blocks of one lesson') and describes the content type in detail. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like teachable_get_curriculum or teachable_update_lesson, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the return description ('blocks of one lesson in the order the lesson editor shows them'). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named relative to get_curriculum or other lesson tools.

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