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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content-level context: the answer bands returned (4–5, 7–8, 9–10, 11–12) and that responses include an official rating, which goes beyond what the annotations 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and its provenance, the second states the use case. No filler or repetition.

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 must convey return content, and it does (sample answers per level band plus CELPIP's rating). Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, nothing needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by tying question_id to a Speaking or Writing task obtained from get_celpip_practice_question, clarifying the expected source and valid scope of the value.

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 ('sample answers at several CELPIP levels ... for a Speaking or Writing task') and names the sibling that produces the required question_id (get_celpip_practice_question). An agent can distinguish this from check_celpip_answers and get_celpip_practice_question without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the intended use ('Use them to give the learner feedback on their own answer') and the prerequisite dependency on get_celpip_practice_question. It does not explicitly contrast with check_celpip_answers, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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