individual_goals_lesson_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Get' and does not disclose return shape, filtering behavior, or side effects. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist, but it reveals very little about how the tool behaves beyond being 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical invocation constraint follows immediately. Every sentence 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate with behavioral and return-value context. It does not explain what the individual lesson content looks like, how results are scoped, or what the response contains. The schema handles parameter definitions, but the overall tool context remains 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by declaring the at-least-one-required rule among student_id, lesson_id, and date_from, which is not expressed as required in the schema itself.

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 clear action and resource: 'Get individual lesson content for students.' It is more specific than a tautology and gives a sense of scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like individual_goals_learning_agreements.

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?

The description provides an invocation constraint—'At least one of student_id, lesson_id, or date_from is required'—but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternative tools. It also omits the schema's restriction that lesson_id cannot combine with date_from/date_to.

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