Learning paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the baseline bar is low. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each result (slug, URL, course count, total hours, first course names) and the behavioral difference between a filtered query and the default no-query listing. It does not mention pagination or whether results are ranked by relevance, so it stops short of 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by the return fields and the sibling handoff. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

The tool has only 2 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back — and it does, naming the per-path fields and the first-course preview. Combined with the sibling routing note, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both `limit` and `query` are already documented with defaults, bounds and examples in the schema. The description reinforces the `query` semantics (omit to list main paths) but adds nothing about `limit` and no syntax guidance beyond what the schema and its Farsi examples provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 ("Find Faradars learning paths") and defines what a learning path is (curated course collections for a topic, beginner to advanced). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fr_learning_path, which returns the ordered course list for a single path, so an agent can pick between the list and detail tools without comparing schemas.

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 explicit routing: pass the `slug` to fr_learning_path for the whole ordered course list, and omit `query` to list the site's main paths. That covers both when this tool is the right choice and the exact handoff to the alternative sibling.

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