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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only that the response bundles a definition with related lessons, which is a content-scope detail already implied by the existing output schema. It does not mention behavior on unknown terms or the breadth of the concept set.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed immediately by the secondary value (related lessons). No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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?

This is a single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, so little additional prose is required. The description is complete enough for correct invocation, with the only minor gap being no guidance on lookup failure or non-matching terms.

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 single 'term' parameter is documented with examples ('RAG', 'temperature', 'prompt caching'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's parenthetical examples largely duplicate the schema's list and add no new syntax, casing, or matching guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and the content returned: a plain-language definition of an AI concept, accompanied by the lessons that teach it. That 'plus lessons' element separates it from get_lesson and search_lessons, so an agent can place it among siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly softens the purpose signal, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: the phrase 'with the lessons that teach it' suggests this is a conceptual lookup that also surfaces learning material, distinguishing it from pure lesson retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no condition selecting it over search_lessons or get_lesson, and no note on what to do for unknown or out-of-scope terms.

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