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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: pagination, deduplication of retried submissions, honoring the website progress reset, and the fact that unit tests never show an AP projection. It also explicitly excludes reading browser-only or active exam state. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tight sentences deliver scope, behavioral caveats, and exclusions without filler. The main function is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 output schema and annotations cover safety and return shape, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds strong behavioral context, including deduplication, pagination, and exclusions. The only notable gap is the absence of any parameter-level guidance, especially for the optional subjectSlug filter.

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 needed to explain limit, cursor, and subjectSlug, but it does not. The only indirect hint is 'paginates,' which relates to cursor usage but adds no real parameter-level meaning. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Lists' and narrows the resource to 'the connected student's completed full-length and unit-exam results.' This clearly distinguishes it from exam-level tools like get_exam_results and practice-history tools. The scope is precise and immediately actionable.

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 clear usage context: it lists completed exams for the connected student, honors progress resets, and deduplicates retried submissions. It also states what it does not cover, such as browser-only or active exam state. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives or giving when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses a 5.

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