get_lesson

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: OAuth scope requirements, not-found behavior for invalid ids, and a strong warning that lesson body content is untrusted data that may contain prompt-injection-like text. This goes well beyond the structured annotation fields and does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value details: the contrast with list_lessons, id semantics, scope requirement, error behavior, and a security note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the resource, the distinguishing behavior, the parameter, the authentication requirement, error semantics, and the untrusted-data warning. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional information.

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 input schema only defines id as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that id is the obfuscated Skilljar lesson id and describing how invalid ids are handled. This gives the agent everything needed to supply the parameter correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one lesson by its Skilljar id, including its body content.' It also distinguishes itself from list_lessons by explicitly stating that list_lessons does not return lesson bodies, which disambiguates it from the most closely related sibling.

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 description gives clear usage guidance by explaining that get_lesson is the way to read content_html since list_lessons deliberately omits bodies. It also provides necessary context such as the required lessons:read OAuth scope and the error behavior for malformed, cross-organization, or soft-deleted ids.

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