Get lesson

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

Although annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: formatting is dropped but paragraph/list structure is preserved, uploaded Skool videos and attached files are omitted, uploaded_video indicates upload status, and only accessible lessons are returned. These are exactly the omissions and caveats an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting the result.

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 front-loaded with the essential outcome — one lesson's text and video link — and every following sentence adds useful detail about return format, omissions, or access. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only lesson retrieval tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness: it explains what is returned, what is excluded, and the access boundary. An agent can call it correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three required parameters, so the schema already explains group, course_id, and lesson_id. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: it returns one Classroom lesson, specifically its text and linked video. This clearly distinguishes it from lesson-mutating siblings like create_lesson, update_lesson, and mark_lesson_complete, as well as from course-level tools like get_course.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: an agent would use this to fetch a single lesson's content after identifying its course and lesson IDs. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_course, list_courses, or other lesson-related siblings, nor does it name prerequisites or alternatives.

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