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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The description usefully adds a cost signal ('Cheap') and notes resource ids are suitable for reading sections, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite offset/limit params.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb/resource/scope, and the terse 'Cheap.' is efficient. No filler, though the filter sentence could be more informative for its length.

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 6-param list tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers resource types and filters but omits pagination semantics and, critically, how it relates to the very similar sibling list tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 17% (only 'unit' documented), so the description must compensate — but it merely names 'kind, unit and words', which are already the parameter names. It adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics, and omits limit/offset/subjectSlug entirely.

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 clear verb+resource+scope: it lists assignment reading resources for a single subject, and enumerates the concrete kinds (study guides, unit reviews, AMSCO guided notes, key terms, cheatsheets) matching the enum. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like list_cheatsheets or list_key_terms, which weakens it slightly below 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?

Only says 'Optional filters cover kind, unit and words' with no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling list_cheatsheets/list_key_terms tools that return subsets, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied at best.

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