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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: stable ID ordering, pagination semantics with unchanged filters, the fact that only summaries are returned, and the cost characteristic ('Cheap'). This helps an agent reason about repeated calls and performance.

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 four tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds pagination, return-content, and cost details that each earn their place. The one-word 'Cheap' is concise but informative.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields. It sufficiently covers filtering, pagination, content scope, and cost, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical behavioral expectations.

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 71%, so the schema covers most parameter meanings. The description adds useful semantics by naming the filter dimensions (FRQ type, unit, excluded IDs) and explaining pagination behavior tied to cursor usage, complementing the schema without fully re-documenting every 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 clearly states the action ('Lists'), the resource ('Fiveable's free-response practice prompts'), and the scope ('for an AP subject'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_frq tool by explicitly noting it returns prompt ids and summaries rather than full prompts.

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 implies when the tool is useful: listing filtered FRQ prompts in paginated form. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative like get_frq for full-prompt needs or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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