list_level_progressions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not explain that results are paginated via page_after_id/page_before_id, what the updated_after filter does, whether the listing is filtered to the authenticated user, or what the records look like.

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?

Four words, front-loaded, zero waste — but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline; there is no structure to speak of because there is almost no content.

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?

A four-parameter, paginated list tool with no output schema and no field documentation needs the description to carry pagination, filtering, and return-shape context. The annotations cover the safety profile, but nothing an agent needs to actually call this correctly is present.

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 0% across four parameters, including the non-obvious pagination pair (page_after_id / page_before_id) and the updated_after timestamp. The description supplies no meaning for any of them, so an agent has to guess cursor semantics and the purpose of the ids array.

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?

"List level progression history" names a verb and a resource, so the agent knows roughly what it returns. But among many sibling list_* tools (list_resets, list_reviews, list_subjects, list_review_statistics) it gives no clue what a "level progression" is or how it differs from those, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other list_* siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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