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

The description discloses the async build behavior ('Returns a plan id immediately while the plan builds'), the retry semantics via requestId, and the idempotency caveat ('never call this twice'). These add value beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and do not contradict them.

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?

Four concise, front-loaded sentences that pack in purpose, prerequisites, async behavior, retry guidance, and a pointer to the read tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: when to use it (signed-in), what it returns, how to read the result, and how to retry safely. The output schema presumably details the plan structure, so the description is sufficiently 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 coverage is only 20% (only requestId has a description). The description mentions 'topic and available time' which loosely maps to scope and timeAmount/timeUnit, but it does not explain subjectSlug or clarify the format of scope beyond a hint. It adds some meaning but does not compensate for the low schema 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Creates and saves') and resource ('trackable Fiveable study plan') and distinguishes it from the sibling get_study_plan by explaining the immediate return and async build. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Free for signed-in students' sets a prerequisite, 'Reuse requestId with identical input to retry; never call this twice for the same plan' gives concrete usage rules, and it points to get_study_plan for reading the result. This is strong, actionable direction.

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