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

Annotations already establish it as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the returned sections, clarifies that in-progress sessions come with answered counts, and crucially draws a scope boundary with 'Scores only; never questions.'

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the single long second sentence is packed with meaningful payload detail rather than filler. It is dense but every clause enumerates distinct returned data, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden – and it does so thoroughly, covering every section an agent would receive (per-exam scores, composite, retake movement, mastery, in-progress sessions, Final Readiness unlock state). Nothing needed to call or interpret it correctly appears 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 description coverage is 100% and the sole `program` parameter carries a full enum plus a clear default-omission explanation, so the schema does the semantic work. The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds nothing beyond it – 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 states a specific verb-plus-resource – it returns completed sprints, practice exams, baseline and final assessment results with named fields (Take 1/Take 2 scores, composite, movement, mastery, in-progress sessions, unlock requirements). It is detailed enough that an agent can distinguish it from sibling reads like get_readiness or get_result_review.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the connected learner asks how they did on sprints, practice exams, the baseline or the final assessment.' That is a clear condition for selection. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative (e.g. get_result_review for item-level detail) or stating when not to use it.

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