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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses pagination behavior ('Results are paginated; pass the returned cursor to get more') and implies a read-only operation via 'List...'. It also clarifies that the subject parameter accepts both codes from list_subjects and arbitrary topic tags. These details add meaningful beyond-schema context, though it doesn't describe error handling or the exact response shape.

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 two sentences, with the verb and resource in the first clause. It front-loads the action, provides examples inline, and includes a succinct note on pagination. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

The tool is a list operation with no output schema, so the description is the primary source for return value expectations. It explains that it returns study plans and articles, mentions pagination, and crosses references to list_subjects. This is sufficient for a simple browsing tool, though it does not detail the structure of the returned items (e.g., whether they are IDs or titles). Given the sibling tools and simple nature, the description is adequately complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds additional meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the 'subject' parameter: it explains that both subject codes from list_subjects and free-form topic tags are accepted, and gives concrete examples ('parsha', 'jonah', 'psalm 23'). It also clarifies the 'cursor' parameter's usage by saying 'pass the returned cursor to get more.' This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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 function: 'List study plans and articles for a subject or topic.' It names the resource type and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on browsing multiple items rather than retrieving a single chapter, plan, or verse. Examples of subject codes and topic tags make the scope immediately understandable.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: when you have a subject code (from list_subjects) or a topic tag. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use get_plan for a specific plan,' but it implies this by describing a list/browse function. The reference to list_subjects is a useful cross-tool pointer. No exclusions or 'when not to use' are stated, but the context is clear enough.

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