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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful fact that this is a deprecated compatibility shim, but says nothing about whether output matches the current lessons endpoint or what "original" excludes.

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?

A single compact phrase with the most decision-relevant token ("Deprecated") front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed, stacking legacy/compatibility/original/level into one clause at some cost in readability.

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 no explanation, and parameters are largely documented in the schema. For a deprecated read-only listing the description covers the essentials: what it returns, its scope, and its lifecycle status.

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 coverage is 67%; locale and idempotencyKey already carry their own descriptions and are explicitly marked transport-only. The description confirms the level filter ("one numbered level") but adds no detail on the 1–6 range or on how level maps to the legacy numbering. Baseline 3 fits where the schema does most of the work.

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?

"Deprecated compatibility listing of original lessons in one numbered level" names a concrete resource (lessons) and scope (a single numbered level), plus the key status marker "deprecated." It does not name or distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling academy_lessons, so an agent must still infer which listing to prefer.

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?

"Deprecated compatibility" implies a when-not-to-use signal and hints that a current alternative exists, but the description never names that alternative (academy_lessons, academy_legacy_levels) or states under what conditions this tool is still correct to call. Usage is only implied.

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