ScheduleGetPackageForGroupLesson

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat that. It adds a small scoping detail ('applicable to a group lesson') but does not explain how applicability is determined, what the return value contains, or why pupilId is optional.

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 or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 and minimal parameter semantics, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain the optional pupilId, what 'applicable' means, or what kind of package object is returned. For an agent to confidently invoke this tool, more invocation context is needed.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions only say 'integer (optional/required)' and provide no real semantics; the tool description also fails to explain the role of pupilId or how lessonId maps to a group lesson.

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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('lesson package'), and scope ('group lesson'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from the sibling ScheduleGetPackageForIndividualLesson through the group/individual contrast, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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 implies this tool is for group lessons, which contrasts with the individual-lesson sibling, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives such as LessonPackagesGetList or ScheduleGetPackageForIndividualLesson.

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