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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds behavior details: returns a 7-day plan (5 words/day), renders an interactive widget, and launches flashcard sessions. However, it does not mention error handling for invalid inputs.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: usage conditions, return value, exclusions. No redundancy or unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 adequately explains the return (plan and widget). It covers the main use cases and differentiates from siblings. Missing potential edge cases (e.g., unsupported test_family) but sufficient for typical use.

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 50%, and the description adds context: it mentions 'given test family' and 'by date,' clarifying that test_family is required and target_date is optional. It does not provide format details beyond the schema, but the added semantics are sufficient.

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 tool's purpose: 'Use this when the user asks for a study plan...' and specifies it returns a 7-day plan. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming generate_quiz and get_definition as alternatives.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including direct references to sibling tools: 'Do not use for a single quiz session — call generate_quiz instead. Do not use for one-off lookups — call get_definition instead.'

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