OathReady: Canadian Citizenship Test

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

Read-only/idempotent annotations already cover safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns eligibility plus any shortfall, it is an estimate rather than legal advice, and it points to the full interactive calculator. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and rule, then cover input/output and the legal caveat. The long tracking URL is the only slightly heavy element, but every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and the four parameters are fully documented in the input schema, the description supplies all significant context: the legal rule, date format, return semantics, and an explicit disclaimer. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it successfully is missing.

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 interpretive value beyond the schema: 'pre-PR half-day credit capped at 365' explains how temporary_resident_from is used and why the calculation is not just post-PR days. This compensates for the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb/resource ('physical-presence calculator for Canadian citizenship eligibility') and names the exact statutory rule (1,095 days in 5 years) plus the pre-PR half-day credit. This makes it unmistakable among the sibling tools, none of which are presence calculators.

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 context for when to invoke it: to compute physical-presence eligibility for Canadian citizenship, with results as of the application date and shortfall. It does not explicitly spell out when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the sibling list has no competing calculator.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the exact vs. fuzzy matching modes and that grading compares against the specified language's text. It does not contradict any annotation. It doesn't mention edge cases like what happens if both question_id and question_text are supplied, but that is a minor gap.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and then gives typical use cases. Every clause adds information; there is no fluff or repetition of the title.

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's moderate complexity (4 optional params, fuzzy matching, grading), the description covers the essential behaviors and use cases. The output schema exists, so return details are handled elsewhere. It might benefit from clarifying behavior when both question_id and question_text are provided, but the current text is adequate for correct invocation.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds important relational semantics: it explains that question_id is exact while question_text is fuzzy matched, and that language determines which language's text is used for grading. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions and clarifies how the parameters interact.

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 tool's purpose: look up a question in OathReady's verified bank and optionally grade an answer. It specifies the verb (look up, grade), the resource (verified bank), and the two modes (exact id or fuzzy text). It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_* tools, which retrieve content rather than grade or look up answers.

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 explicit typical use cases: 'grading long after a question was fetched' and 'a user half-remembering a question... wanting the verified answer.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools (e.g., 'use this instead of get_practice_question when grading'), so the when-not-to-use is implicit rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: data source (IRCC open data), licensing (Open Government Licence - Canada), rounding behavior (nearest 5), and citation requirements. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The citation URL is somewhat long but serves a functional purpose. Every sentence adds value: what data, from where, under what license, and how to cite.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers data source, licensing, rounding, and citation. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output structure, but the output schema presumably handles that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description compensates by explaining what data will be returned (monthly counts, yearly totals, top countries of birth), which is the relevant semantic content for a no-parameter tool.

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 tool provides official IRCC statistics on new Canadian citizens, with specific data types (monthly counts, yearly totals, top countries of birth). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on citizenship statistics rather than study guides, practice questions, or journey stats.

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 this is a reference/statistics tool for citizenship data, distinct from the study/test tools in the sibling list. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of official statistics makes its use case clear. It also provides citation instructions, which is a form of usage guidance.

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

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: daily rollover at midnight UTC, identical questions for all users, English fallback for missing translations, and quizmaster interaction rules. These are not derivable from annotations alone.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral instructions and a reference URL. The URL is long with tracking parameters but functional; every sentence contributes value without being overly verbose.

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?

For a read-only tool with one optional, fully-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details (rollover, language fallback, quizmaster workflow, external destination). Nothing an agent needs to invoke and handle the result correctly is missing.

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?

The main description does not discuss the language parameter; however, the input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of language handling and fallback. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it returns the shared Daily Challenge set of 5 citizenship questions with answer keys and explanations. It distinguishes itself from practice/mock tools by emphasizing 'same... for everyone, once per day', but does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear context on how to present results (one question at a time, don't reveal answers, score as N/5, direct users to the site) which effectively guides agent behavior after invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_mock_test or get_practice_question.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: data is sourced from IRCC plus anonymous community contributions, cohorts under 5 are never published, results are rebuilt nightly, and attribution is required. This meaningfully informs an agent about freshness, privacy, and usage obligations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('How long the citizenship journey takes'), then adds essential context. The long citation URL adds length, but it is a necessary attribution requirement rather than fluff.

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?

For a read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: data sources, milestone definitions, privacy thresholds, freshness, and citation policy. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level semantics are inherently minimal. With no input schema to clarify, the description adequately conveys the data scope and what the returned stats represent, though it doesn't describe output formatting since an output schema exists.

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 what the tool reports: citizenship journey timelines with official IRCC processing time plus community medians for milestones like AOR, test invitation, test, and oath. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_citizenship_stats, but the milestone-specific detail strongly implies the distinction.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_citizenship_stats. It includes a citation instruction for using the numbers, but no guidance on tool selection, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses detailed behavioral expectations: it returns questions with answer keys and explanations, and instructs the agent to act as quizmaster by presenting one question at a time, withholding answers until the user commits, keeping score, and applying the 15/20 pass bar. This is rich, actionable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second notes the return contents, and the third gives clear operating instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, 4 optional parameters with full schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description provides everything needed: what the tool returns, the exam format, the passing threshold, and how the agent should conduct the quiz. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds one parameter-related fact ('real test is 20 questions, pass mark 15') that reinforces the count default, but it does not add meaningful semantics for topic, language, or province beyond what the schema already describes.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a full mock Canadian citizenship test' from a verified bank in real exam format. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_practice_question by emphasizing 'full mock test' and 'real exam format.'

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 context that this is for full mock tests in exam format, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than directly stated, so it does not fully satisfy the when-to-use vs alternatives criterion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful contextual transparency by stating the content is verified against official IRCC guidance, which signals authority and currency. There are no destructive side effects or auth requirements to disclose for this no-parameter read-only tool.

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 two sentences and immediately states what the tool returns, followed by a structured list of content categories holanda. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the content is front-loaded without unnecessary prose.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only content retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the resource identity, content scope, and the authoritative source. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The input schema is empty, and the description focuses entirely on what the returned guide contains, which is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as OathReady's guide to the Canadian citizenship oath ceremony and enumerates its contents: oath text, what to bring, how the day unfolds, and first steps as a new citizen. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_study_guide and get_test_day_guide because it is specifically about the oath ceremony, not studying or the test day.

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 the tool should be used when a user needs information about the oath ceremony, especially given sibling tools cover study and test-day topics. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or exclude other uses, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description fully discloses the interactive behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It explains the expected flow (show, wait, grade, explain) and confirms the read-only nature. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences: purpose, return content, and usage instruction. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, return structure, and interactive usage. With an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool and use it correctly. All optional parameters are explained in the schema.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (topic, language, province). The tool description adds context about the source (OathReady's verified bank) and the quizmaster flow, but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves one random practice question from a verified bank, and specifies the quizmaster interaction pattern. It is distinct from siblings like get_mock_test or get_daily_challenge by focusing on a single question with an interactive flow.

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 explicit instructions on how to use the tool: show only question and options, wait for user pick, then grade and explain. This is a clear usage guideline. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the 'random' nature imply it is for isolated practice, not full tests.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a quality claim about being 'verified against the official Discover Canada guide' but does not disclose any behavioral aspects beyond what annotations provide. The bar is lowered due to annotations, and the description adds some value but not substantial behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise and clear, containing no redundant information. A slightly higher score would require even more efficiency or better organization, but it is already well-crafted.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the basic purpose and quality of the content. However, given the complexity of the tool set with multiple sibling guides, it lacks usage guidance and could be more complete in directing the agent.

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% with a single enum parameter 'topic' described as 'The study topic'. The description mentions 'topic' in context but does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the enum values listed in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'study-guide content for one citizenship test topic', and specifies the content includes an overview and bite-size facts verified against an official guide. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_oath_guide' and 'get_mock_test'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_oath_guide' or 'get_mock_test'. It fails to mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a retrieval tool. The description adds context about content (hot topics, tips) beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no 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 input parameters and an output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool returns.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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 tool provides 'Practical guidance for Canadian citizenship test day' plus recent test-taker reports, distinguishing it from siblings like get_oath_guide or get_study_guide.

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 usage for test day guidance but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds provenance ('Verified against official IRCC sources') and content scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the facts are cached, how current they are, or any limitations on applicability.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then lists concrete topics. The final sentence about IRCC verification adds trustworthiness without padding. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only, no-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the content areas, and the source. It could be more complete by clarifying how it differs from sibling tools, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 names the resource ('Canadian citizenship test and oath') and enumerates the specific facts covered: format, pass mark, who must take it, scheduling, and ceremony. It is more specific than the title, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_oath_guide or get_test_day_guide, which could overlap in scope.

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 usage: an agent should call this when a user needs key factual information about the citizenship test or oath, such as pass mark or ceremony details. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_mock_test for practice or get_oath_guide for detailed ceremony guidance.

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