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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context about the returned document shape and that unopened lessons are also served in this format, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a missing lesson_id, or side effects.

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?

The description is a dense wall of format specification that front-loads node types rather than the tool's purpose. Much of the enumeration (node list, attr names) is authoring detail more relevant to create_lesson than to calling get_lesson, so it is not well-sized for the selection decision.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the entire return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating the TipTap/ProseMirror document structure. It omits failure behavior and whether metadata (title, module) accompanies the document, but the core output contract is well covered.

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 0%, so the single lesson_id parameter is documented nowhere. The description never mentions the parameter, adding no semantics beyond the self-evident name; with only one obvious integer id this is tolerable, but it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 centers on the output — 'Документ урока в формате TipTap/ProseMirror' — which, paired with the name get_lesson and title 'Урок целиком', makes it clear this retrieves a full lesson document. It never states a retrieval verb explicitly and does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from get_course/update_lesson, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions (e.g. vs get_course for structure or update_lesson for editing). The only cross-tool hint is 'Ответ годится как образец для create_lesson', which is about reusing the output rather than when to call this tool.

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