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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the pauses_summary aggregation window (over 14 days) and the null return of last_quiz when no quiz exists. It stops short of stating freshness or cost.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Today's summary' and then a long semicolon-chained field list. No sentence is strictly wasted, but the run-on form and opaque referential syntax such as docs("pace") and lessons() hurt scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full return-value burden and does so comprehensively, enumerating every field. Remaining gaps are the cryptic internal references (docs("pace"), lessons()) whose meaning an agent can only guess.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The description makes clear this is a read-only daily snapshot aggregating cards due, streak, targets, quiz, pace, and ready lessons. The resource is unambiguous, though there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from siblings like progress or profile, which also expose learner state.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus progress, profile, srs_due, or quizzes, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the 'everything-at-a-glance' entry point.

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