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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Get' clearly implies a read operation, and it discloses a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — the schedule is truncated to the first 7 days. It does not say how to obtain the remaining days or what happens with an invalid id, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the return contents are front-loaded, and the calling instruction follows with a concrete example. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape in enough detail for an agent to know what it gets back, including the 7-day truncation. It omits what happens after the first 7 days and any error behavior, which is a minor but real omission.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks: the id originates from a browse_subject link and is the final path segment, with its own example. The language parameter is left entirely to the schema enum, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the full detail of one study plan') and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, description, total length, and the day-by-day schedule. It is unambiguous against siblings like get_chapter/get_verse, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 tells the agent where the required id comes from ('Pass a plan id from a browse_subject link'), which is a real workflow instruction linking it to the sibling browse_subject. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance or error/fallback conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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