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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that (no explanation of how 'feasible' is decided, no edge-case behavior), and its return-value listing is redundant with the output schema. Adequate but not additive.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. Minor waste in enumerating return fields that the output schema already provides, but the structure is clean and the core purpose leads.

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, idempotent calculator with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. The routing hint to list_bundles adds a small discovery benefit; nothing critical is missing.

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% and all three required parameters carry format/type descriptions (YYYY-MM-DD, positive integer, positive number), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'exam date and topics' without adding units, defaults, or interpretation beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Generate a study schedule') plus the driving inputs (exam date, topics), so an agent immediately knows what it produces. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling beyond a generic routing pointer to list_bundles, but the resource is unique enough to stand alone.

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?

The only guidance is 'See list_bundles for related education calculators,' which is a discovery pointer, not a when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rule. There is no statement of prerequisites, input validity conditions, or an alternative tool to prefer in any scenario.

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