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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the data is scoped to the signed-in student, and it represents past attempts for a single FRQ. This gives the agent a concrete sense of the returned data's semantics without conflicting with the annotation hints.

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, front-loaded sentence that first states the verb and resource, then the intended use case. Every clause earns its place, and there is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema details.

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 is simple, has full schema coverage, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. The description covers what the tool does, for whom, at what scope, and why it is useful, leaving no practical gap for an agent selecting or invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents frqId and intent thoroughly. The description's mention of 'a single FRQ' aligns with frqId but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('the signed-in student's previous attempts at a single FRQ'), which clearly separates it from broader history tools like get_my_practice_history. The phrase 'single FRQ' adds an important scoping detail that disambiguates this from sibling tools even without naming them.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'compare a new response against what they wrote before and comment on improvement.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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