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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-trivial context beyond them: "Cheap" signals cost/priority, "paginated" tells the agent results are chunked, and "including website plans" clarifies what content is surfaced.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: verb/resource first, then the audience condition, then the cost/pagination note. No filler, though the final "Cheap; paginated" fragment is terser than ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a three-parameter filtered list the description is adequate on purpose and pagination but omits any explanation of the subjectSlug filter or limit bounds, which an agent needs to call it well.

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% across three parameters (limit, cursor, subjectSlug), so the description carries the full burden. It offers only "paginated" as a weak hint toward cursor and says nothing about limit bounds, the subject filter, or the cursor format, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 (Lists) and resource (the connected student's saved Fiveable study plans), and clarifies scope by noting website plans are included. It is clearly distinguishable from create_study_plan or update_study_plan_tasks, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the singular get_study_plan sibling.

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?

"Included for signed-in students" is a genuine precondition that tells the agent this only works in an authenticated context. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_study_plan (single plan) or which subject to filter by, leaving selection largely to inference.

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