lesson_verifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It does add real context beyond that: results can be invalidated, and invalidated results are historical evidence rather than current verdicts — a non-obvious semantic distinction the schema and annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read scope before the downstream workflow. The final sentence about invalidated results is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but every line carries information.

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 values need no prose explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. What remains — the verify workflow and the invalidation caveat — is exactly the non-structured context an agent needs. Only slug handling is left thin.

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?

One required parameter (slug) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. 'Current lesson revision' implies the slug identifies a lesson, but format, resolution rules, or error behavior on unknown slugs are unstated. Adequate but a clear gap remains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the current lesson revision plus source-linked factual checks. That 'factual checks' scope implicitly differentiates it from lesson_get, though the sibling is never named. An agent can tell what it retrieves, but not explicitly how it differs from other lesson readers.

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?

Gives a clear workflow condition: check an official source, then pass this revision to curator_verify_lesson. That names the downstream alternative and its trigger. It does not cover when to prefer lesson_get or lesson_neighbors instead, so no exclusions are stated.

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