academy_legacy_levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious fact that the data is a deprecated compatibility layer rather than the canonical source, which is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the deprecation warning and following with the alternative in one clause.

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 an output schema, full annotations and complete parameter documentation, the only missing piece was deprecation status and the redirect to current paths, both of which are supplied. Nothing material is absent for a zero-required-parameter read 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 100% and both parameters (locale, idempotencyKey) are transport-level fields fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource ('original numbered content levels') and its status as a deprecated compatibility view, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not name a retrieval verb explicitly, but 'view' implies read access and the sibling differentiation is present.

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 alternative explicitly ('use paths for current learning paths') and signals the deprecated/legacy condition that selects against this tool. The exclusions are clear, though it does not spell out any positive scenario in which this tool should still be called.

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