get_study_guideGet OathReady's study-guide content for one citizenship test topic: an overview and the bite-size facts most commonly tested, verified against the official Discover Canada guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | The study topic |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| overview | Yes | ||
| web_page | Yes | ||
| key_facts | Yes | ||
| practice_questions_in_topic | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: presence calculation, question lookup/grading, stats, daily challenge, journey stats, mock test, oath guide, practice question, study guide, test day guide, and test info. Even the three question-providing tools (get_daily_challenge, get_mock_test, get_practice_question) are well-differentiated by format and intent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with most starting with 'get_' (e.g., get_daily_challenge, get_mock_test) and two exceptions (calculate_presence, check_answer) that still adhere to the same verb_noun structure. No mixed conventions.
11 tools is well-scoped for the Canadian citizenship test domain. It covers eligibility calculation, multiple question formats, statistics, guides, and test-day information without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers the entire lifecycle: eligibility check (calculate_presence), study resources (practice questions, mock tests, study guide, daily challenge), reference info (test info, oath guide, test day guide), statistics, and a question-answer lookup tool. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.