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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: eligibility, cost, performance characteristics ('Cheap'), and pagination behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose and scope. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repeating annotations or schema details.

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 simple read-only list operation with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers audience, eligibility, cost, and pagination. The only notable gap is undocumented subjectSlug filtering, but the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 needed to compensate by explaining limit, cursor, and subjectSlug. It only hints at pagination with 'paginated', leaving cursor mechanics and the subject-filtering semantics largely to inference from parameter names.

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 ('connected student's saved Fiveable study plans'), and clarifies scope with 'including website plans'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_study_plan and create_study_plan without requiring schema inspection.

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 relevant context for when it is appropriate: signed-in students, free, cheap, paginated. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives, such as using get_study_plan for a single plan or list_my_assignments for assignments.

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