search_strategy_lessons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real context — that results are "complete" lessons (not excerpts), that the corpus is a fixed 40-lesson curriculum, and that returns include tables and tool recommendations. It omits match semantics (keyword vs slug resolution), what happens when no query is supplied, and any result-size or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and corpus scope come first and the enumerated content types follow. The list of return types is slightly dense but each item carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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 zero required parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify default behavior (search-all vs empty result) and the shape of returned lessons; it partially does by naming content types but never addresses the no-parameter case. Adequate to call the tool, but marginal for predicting what comes back.

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 100%, including worked examples for query and an enumerated category list, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters — it never mentions the category filter or explains how keyword and slug matching differ — so it does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb pair ("search and retrieve") and a specific resource ("GTO poker strategy lessons... from the 40-lesson Smarter.Poker curriculum"), plus the content types returned (summaries, tables, tool recommendations). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_preflop_chart, get_poker_term_definition, or search_training_simulators, so an agent cannot rule those out from the description alone.

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 is only implied: the phrase "from the 40-lesson Smarter.Poker curriculum" suggests this is for curriculum lessons rather than charts, venue data, or simulator listings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so routing decisions against the many search_* and get_* siblings are left to inference.

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