Get Study Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds 'unchanged' and enumerates the returned data, but offers no further behavioral details such as pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core return statement is front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction about using returned IDs earns its place by giving actionable guidance. Nothing is redundant or excessively 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return contents and providing a forward pointer to drill-down tools. However, focusId is entirely unexplained, and with a broad set of sibling retrieval tools, the description does not fully delineate when this comprehensive snapshot is needed versus when to use a more specific 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It references organizationTermId and how to reuse it, but provides no explanation of focusId, no indication that both parameters are optional, and no semantics about how the parameters affect the returned study plan.

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 ('Return') with a detailed resource list: module elections, elective pools, available terms, attempt summaries, and study-plan state. It also distinguishes this tool from 'drill-down tools' by positioning it as the top-level entry point, so an agent can clearly understand what this tool provides.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use the returned organizationTermId and moduleVersion.id values with the drill-down tools, establishing when this tool should be used—as a prerequisite for deeper lookups. It doesn't name specific sibling tools or provide negative conditions, but the entry-point role is clear.

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