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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lesson structure but says nothing about behavior: whether it's a read-only operation, required permissions, return format, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 short sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core structure. The second sentence is cryptic but informative. It's concise without being under-specified to the point of uselessness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description offers minimal context. It doesn't explain what a returned lesson contains beyond phase names, nor does it address potential edge cases (e.g., invalid day/track combos). It's barely adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase '365 days x 4 tracks x 3 age groups' aligns with the day (1-365), track (4 enums), and age (3 enums) parameters, adding product-level context. However, it doesn't explicitly map these dimensions to the parameter names or explain parameter syntax.

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 identifies the resource as a 'Structured 5-phase lesson' with a clear list of phases (hook->story->wonder->action->wisdom) and dimensions (365 days, 4 tracks, 3 age groups). This makes the tool's purpose apparent, though it relies on the tool name for the action verb. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar tools like get_quiz, so not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use get_lesson versus alternatives such as get_quiz or other siblings. The dimensional information implies use cases but doesn't state them. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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