start-here

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns the First Dollar curriculum: fifteen short lessons in order') and the assumed audience ('Assumes no prior knowledge'). It does not describe exact return formatting or side effects, but for a read-only educational tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences: an engaging opening that states when to start, a precise statement of the returned curriculum with a sample range, and a final note on prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage triggers, what is returned (including lesson count and ordering), and the knowledge assumptions. Sibling tools are specific subtopics, and this description adequately fills the role of a central onboarding/index 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist. It adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('First Dollar curriculum'), and identifies the target audience (beginners or users hitting a 402). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the entry point that provides an ordered curriculum rather than a single topic.

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 provides clear when-to-use conditions: 'Start here if you want to learn how to spend your own money for the first time, or if you hit a 402 and aren't sure what to do.' It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context implies that specific topic tools (siblings) are for narrower questions, making the usage guidance strong.

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