ScheduleGetPackageForIndividualLesson

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

Annotations already declare this operation read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose what happens if no package exists, what the return value looks like, or any other runtime behavior, so it provides no value beyond the structured annotations.

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 redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only tool and communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the core action is covered, but there is no output schema and no mention of edge cases like a lesson without an applicable package or what kind of package data is returned. The annotations handle safety, yet the tool remains minimally complete rather than fully contextual.

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%, meeting the high-coverage baseline of 3. The tool description contextualizes lessonId as belonging to an individual lesson, but it does not explain format, meaning, or possible values any further than the schema's minimal 'integer (required)' note.

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 the specific verb 'Get', names the resource 'lesson package', and scopes it to 'an individual lesson', which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tool ScheduleGetPackageForGroupLesson. This gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool does and how it relates to nearby alternatives.

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 phrase 'an individual lesson' implies this tool is for individual rather than group lesson packages, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is present only by implication, not expressed as clear conditions or exclusions.

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