get_lesson_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the supported lesson range (1-116) but omits behavior for invalid inputs, language selection defaults, authentication needs, or return format. Minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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 that is direct and front-loaded with the resource name and action. No filler or redundant explanation, every word earns its place.

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 simple content retrieval tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description provides essential context: resource name, scope, and valid range. Missing details like error cases or response language are not critical given the simplicity.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (language enum with default ko, lesson_number with min/max). The tool description restates the range in prose but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb '가져옵니다' (fetches) and names the exact resource '「하느님의 교훈이 담긴 성경 이야기 (훈)」' with scope '특정 과' (specific lesson) and range 1-116. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lesson_list or getWorkbookContent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_lesson_list for listing lessons or get_bible_verse for scripture. The description only implies it is for specific lesson content; no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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