get_lesson

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully explains that counter-observations are dated 'did not work / no longer true' notes and should be weighed against helpful count, and that related lessons are included. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or the overall response structure.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds valuable specifics. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the main output components: the full lesson, counter-observations, and related lessons. Since there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing what will be returned, though it could be more explicit about the lesson's base fields and any pagination or limits for related lessons.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, 'id', is not explained in the description beyond the implied need to identify one lesson. The schema provides the type and constraint, but the description does not clarify where the id comes from or how it relates to lessons returned by other tools.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one lesson in full.' It further differentiates from sibling tools like search_lessons by specifying that it returns counter-observations and related lessons, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single lesson with additional context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over search_lessons or other retrieval tools. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are provided.

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