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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exam is practice and never affects rank, and it creates a session that must be closed via submit_exam. It does not mention auth handling for api_key, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: what you receive, the parameter's effect, the workflow, and the rank-safety note. The payload is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the return content (blind resolved questions), the optional filter, the follow-up tool, and the absence of rank consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavior when field is omitted ('you get a mix'). The api_key parameter is left entirely to the schema, so it doesn't reach 5.

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+resource: it retrieves up to 24 already-resolved, unseen questions with hidden outcomes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like open_questions (unresolved) and submit_exam (the follow-up step), so an agent can route without opening 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?

Explains the field parameter's effect ('one-field exam' vs 'a mix') and gives the workflow sequence: answer twice, then call submit_exam. It names the downstream tool but offers no explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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