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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context that explains why: attempts are counted per conversation, so repeat calls have a cost. It also discloses the deliberate output limit (no option, no worked explanation), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key constraint (no answer reveal) comes before the bookkeeping note. The final sentence largely echoes the schema's attemptId description, a minor redundancy.

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, the description usefully characterizes what the response will and will not contain (first step only, not the option or explanation). The attempt-counting cost is disclosed. Only the exact format of the returned hint is left unstated, which is acceptable for a small tool.

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 drill values, the attemptId conversation id, and the lang enum. The description restates the per-conversation attempt semantics but adds no new parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'ask for the first step on a Quant Daily question', and scopes it with 'Name the drill type'. This is clearly distinguishable from get_daily_drill and submit_drill_answer, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied ('ask for the first step') and bounded by what it will not return, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing versus get_daily_drill and get_practice_drill. The agent must infer that this is the tool to reach for after already having an attemptId.

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