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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only and is open-world; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the call runs against the connected student account, it consumes their plan quota, and it requires a Scholarize token obtained from Settings. That auth precondition and billing effect are exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs, though latency/pagination-style traits are not applicable here.

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, front-loaded with the action and result, then usage triggers, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (a step-by-step explanation), when to use it, and the account/token prerequisite. The only gap is the absence of any explicit alternative-tool routing, which is minor here.

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%, with both 'question' and 'subject' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics (e.g., subject format, question length/scope) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Ask ... a question') and resource ('the Scholarize Tutor') and states the output form ('step-by-step explanation'), so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the generate_* siblings, but the tutoring/Q&A framing is distinct enough from artifact generators and list_* tools that an agent can separate them.

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?

It gives concrete triggering phrases ('explain X', 'help me understand Y') and a category (homework/concept questions), which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or when NOT to use it (e.g., vs generate_flashcards for drill practice), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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