Get Unit Planning Suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool suggests standards based on overlap, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The example adds context but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 consists of two sentences: one stating purpose and one providing a detailed example. It is extremely concise, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information.

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 could do more to specify return structure, but it does outline detail_level options implicitly. Given sibling tools handle different queries, this tool's role is well contextualized. The example fills some gaps, making it reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example of parameter usage (anchor_code 'MS-PS3-1' and unit_size implied as 2-7) and clarifying the output (compatible standards), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Recommend compatible NGSS standards') and resource ('for curriculum unit planning'), with specific reference to 3D framework overlap (domain, SEP, DCI, CCC). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search or get individual components by focusing on suggestions for unit coherence.

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 includes an example with anchor 'MS-PS3-1', illustrating input usage and expected output size (2-7 compatible standards). It implicitly guides when to use (unit planning around an anchor), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative sibling tools.

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