get_ed_lessons

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is its disclosure of mode-dependent output (Lesson list/progress, lesson body, or quiz content), which is meaningful because there is no output schema. It does not detail pagination or the offset/max_chars return behavior, keeping it just short of full transparency.

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?

Three compact sentences, zero filler. Purpose and modes come first, alternatives second, return value last – well front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 usefully covers return values and routes to siblings, which is sufficient for a mode-switching read tool. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior across the offset/max_chars parameters, but the schema documents those.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description gestures at the mode switching (list/lesson/quiz) but the concrete semantics (quiz=true returns quiz, lesson with a value reads the body) are already spelled out in the schema, so the description adds little beyond what structured fields provide.

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+resource (读取 Ed Lessons) and enumerates its three modes: list progress, read a single lesson, or read a quiz. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (search_ed_threads for discussions, search_content for full-text search), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: use search_ed_threads for Ed discussions and search_content for cross-courseware full-text search. This is explicit when-to-use-else guidance, not implied.

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