LessonPackagesGetList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'List' and the pupil/class scope already visible in the schema; pagination, ordering, updatedAfter behavior, and result shape are not disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently, even if it sacrifices behavioral 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 read-only annotations and a simple required-field schema, the description is minimally sufficient for a basic call. But the optional updatedAfter filter is unexplained, no output schema is provided to clarify return shape, and pagination/ordering behavior is absent.

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 adds minimal semantic grouping for pupilId and classId, but it does not clarify updatedAfter beyond the schema's uninformative 'string (optional)'.

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 states a concrete action ('List') on a specific resource ('lesson packages') with a scope ('for a pupil and/or class'), and clearly separates it from mutation siblings like LessonPackagesSetPackage and LessonPackagesWriteOffLessons. However, 'and/or' is somewhat ambiguous because the schema requires both pupilId and classId.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to retrieve lesson packages. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer that the sibling write tools are not for listing.

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