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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: progress is 'durable' but 'respecting the website progress reset,' and assignment/study-plan summaries are only included 'when their separate permissions are granted.'

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 earning its place: core return data, permission-gated additions, and a clear usage directive. No filler or 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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are not the description's job. It covers what the progress includes, durability/reset behavior, permission dependencies, and when to call it, which is complete for a read-only progress 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 100%, so the schema fully documents subjectSlug and intent. The description reinforces the 'one subject' scope and mentions permission-gated summaries, but adds little semantic value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the signed-in student's durable Fiveable progress for one subject') plus the exact data included. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like get_my_practice_history and get_my_frq_progress by focusing on the aggregate progress for one subject.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before choosing what to explain or practice so recommendations carry across conversations and AI clients.' It gives clear when-to-use guidance, but does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it.

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