Learning objectives of a chapter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful resolution semantic that any ID nested inside the chapter will work, but is silent on what happens when a chapter has no listed objectives, on the response shape, and on behaviour when called with no parameters at all (all five are optional).

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the addressing guidance. The bilingual quote earns its place by making the resource unambiguous, and nothing is padded.

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 burden of saying what comes back, and it does convey that the result is the chapter-opening learning outcome list. The remaining gaps — no-match behaviour and the all-optional parameter situation — are minor for a simple read-only leaf tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents id, class, subject and version, including defaults. The description restates the two accepted addressing modes but adds no syntax or fallback detail beyond the schema, and the unannotated `chapter` parameter is not clarified.

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 names the concrete resource — the learning outcomes printed at the start of an NCTB chapter — and even quotes the recurring heading in both Bangla and English, so an agent can recognise it immediately. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_topic or list_chapters, which would be the only thing separating a 4 from a 5.

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?

Usage context is only implied: it says how to address a chapter (ID anywhere inside it, or chapter number with subject/version) but never states when to choose this over get_topic or list_chapters, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The caller is left to infer that this is the leaf lookup once a chapter is identified.

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