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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: progress continuation links require progress:read consent, only server-saved links are included, and browser-only progress is unrecoverable. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent set accurate expectations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: one defines scope, one gives usage guidance, one discloses limitations. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 an output schema, so return-value details are not required. The description covers purpose, parameter usage, access/consent requirements, and data limitations, making it fully adequate for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for both parameters. It explains subjectSlug's role ('choose a subject for version choices') and unitNumber's role ('verify that unit's current bank and standard format'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. It could be more concrete about valid subject values and version choices, but it compensates reasonably.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource: Fiveable exam formats, access requirements, and website links. It explicitly excludes questions and answer keys, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_practice_questions and get_frq without needing to open schemas.

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 gives actionable guidance: choose a subject for version choices, and add unitNumber to verify that unit's bank and standard format. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'without questions or answer keys' constraint clarifies when this tool is not appropriate.

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