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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the plan is 'sent/saved' to the student's email, the tool returns 'the plan summary and a shareable link,' and it is free. This clarifies the side effects and outcome without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences cover what the tool does, key requirements, outputs, cost, and when to use it. Every sentence adds value and none is redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains inputs, required email side effect, return value, pricing, and the target use case. No essential information 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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the email is required and the syllabus defines what to study, but it does not add significant new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already explains.

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 verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('personalized week-by-week study plan'), and the input sources ('syllabus, exam topics, or a description'). It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tool 'generate_thesis_statement' because it targets study plans rather than thesis statements.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it when a student asks for help planning their studying or exam prep.' It does not name the sibling or explicitly say when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough that an agent would pick it correctly.

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