Check own-account personalized-exercise availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: it refreshes the origin list before querying, and it distinguishes empty data, locked exercises and tool errors. It also flags provider text as untrusted data. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by behavior, exclusions and a trust warning. No filler, though the parenthetical UI analogy is slightly verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and the description instead covers the originKey handoff, state distinctions and exclusions. Missing is any statement of account/authentication context implied by 'selected account', which matters for an open-world tool.

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 coverage is only 25% (only originKey is documented inline), so the description must carry weight. It does add meaning for originKey (must be a previously returned key, default is the last origin) and implicitly for year ('selected account and year'), but 'limit' and 'offset' get no mention beyond obvious pagination naming.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Read only personalized-exercise availability') plus a scope ('selected account and year'), which is far more precise than the sibling list/search tools. An agent can tell this apart from sas_get_material or sas_list_sections without opening a schema.

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?

It states the required workflow ('queries only a returned originKey', which comes from an earlier catalog/section tool) and the default fallback ('defaults to the last origin, as in the student UI'), giving clear preconditions. It also enumerates what it will not do (open a solver, create subscriptions, submit answers), though it never names the sibling that handles non-personalized lookups.

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