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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it assembles existing content rather than creating a course, returns stage URLs, objectives, prerequisites, reading minutes and supporting tools, and reports whether the path follows official order. Auth and rate-limit details are absent, but those are less central for this read-only tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then return contents, then usage and exclusion guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 three-parameter read-only assembly tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context and clarifies that no new course is created. The language fallback is adequately covered by 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%, with descriptions for `level`, `topic`, and `language`, including enum values, topic examples, and fallback behavior. The tool description mentions `level` and `topic` but does not add semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Build,' and resource, 'ordered study path,' and scopes it to required `level` and optional `topic`. It also distinguishes the tool from `get_content`, so an agent can identify its role without opening the 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 trigger phrases such as 'where do I start' and 'make me a study plan,' and states a when-not-to-use case with a named alternative: reading a lesson should use `get_content`. This is clear routing guidance with both positive and negative conditions.

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