find_curriculum_lessons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: results are ordered 'most directly-taught first', and each lesson carries its own licence/attribution string that must be reproduced rather than replaced with a generic one.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core function and ordering are front-loaded, and the licensing instruction is a necessary compliance detail that 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 description omits how to connect the 'standard' concept to the input parameters and gives no guidance on how this lesson-finding tool relates to the standard-focused siblings. The licensing note and output schema help, but the invocation contract is under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters, but it does not explain author, lessonName, ordinalName, or caseIdentifierUUID. The phrase 'aligned to a standard' does not map clearly to any visible parameter.

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 specific operation (find) and resource (curriculum lessons), and adds a key selection criterion ('aligned to a standard') plus sort order. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_materials_for_lesson and find_standard_statement, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies a lesson-search use case, but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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