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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: exactly one record is returned, unknown ids produce an error, and no authentication is required.

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 four focused sentences, front-loads the core action and identifier requirement, then covers usage and behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

Given one required parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all agent-relevant decision points: when to use it, alternatives, return cardinality, error behavior, and authentication requirements.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single id parameter. It specifies an exact identifier, gives an example, and notes typical sources from search/list results, though it does not detail the full id format beyond the example.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Return one interactive classroom tool by its exact identifier," and includes an example. It clearly distinguishes this lookup tool from search/list/dataset siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (when already holding a tool id), where ids typically come from, and when not to use it, naming search_classroom_tools and get_curriculum_dataset as alternatives.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), it discloses the 220-item cap, single-call completeness, canonical ordering, content_hash semantics, and that no authentication is required. Some of that overlaps with idempotentHint and with the existing output schema, so it is strong but not fully additive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the not-a-description caveat, then the trigger and exclusion. The long parenthetical inventory of datasets is dense but earns most of its space; the item counts (e.g. 'animals (193)') and deck provenance are the only slightly expendable detail.

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 an output schema present the description rightly does not explain return shapes, and instead covers the things schemas cannot: determinism across calls, the single-call size ceiling, and the absence of auth. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the dataset_id enum already enumerates every valid identifier, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates those datasets in prose and hints that level boundaries are canonical, but adds no new syntax or constraint information for level_or_family beyond what its schema description already says.

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 and resource ('Fetch a complete curriculum dataset') and immediately disambiguates it from a mere description of the data ('the actual words, not a description of them'). It enumerates the concrete dataset families so an agent knows exactly what payload it gets, which is distinct from every sibling tool in the list.

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?

Gives explicit positive triggers (lesson, worksheet, quiz, flashcard set needing exact word lists) and an explicit exclusion with the named alternative: 'Do not use when you need an interactive activity instead (use search_classroom_tools).' It also warns against generating the sequences from memory, which is the key failure mode this tool prevents.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new facts: unpaginated single response, fixed catalog order, and no authentication required. It does not say what happens if the catalog grows beyond the stated 24, but the added context is real.

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 short sentences ordered as purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, with the alternative tools named last. Every sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact; no filler.

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?

A parameterless read tool with an output schema and full annotations needs little more, and the description still covers response shape (one unpaginated payload, fixed order) and auth. An agent has everything required to call it correctly and to know when not to.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly signals that no inputs are needed by framing it as a filter-free listing.

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 (List) and resource (interactive classroom tools) with explicit scope: all 24, complete inventory, no filtering. It is immediately distinguishable from search_classroom_tools and get_curriculum_dataset, which are named directly.

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?

Gives the positive trigger ('complete inventory or browsing without filters') and two explicit exclusions with the sibling to use instead in each case. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable traits beyond that: results are unpaginated, returned in fixed catalog order, deterministic for identical filters, and require no authentication.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage boundaries, then behavioral guarantees. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant or 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden. For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, alternatives, ordering, pagination, and auth context -- everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including grade 0=Kindergarten and standard code formats. The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find interactive classroom tools') plus the catalog scope, subject areas, and filter dimensions. It explicitly contrasts with get_curriculum_dataset, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without reading schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (need an interactive activity, visualizer, or game; filter by subject/grade/keyword/standard) and an explicit when-not-to-use with the named alternative for raw word lists. Nothing is left to inference.

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