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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds substantive context beyond that: results are ordered weakest-domain-first, the confidence/result cross-tab is included, and the tool deliberately excludes question content and pass predictions, which sets expectations about what is and is not returned.

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?

Usage triggers are front-loaded in the first sentence, with return content following, so the structure is sensible. The second sentence is a long run-on enumeration of return fields that is dense but each item is meaningful for an agent deciding whether this tool answers the question.

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: it enumerates the diagnostic sections (blind spots, knowledge-area results, confidence matrix, miss reasons, pace metrics, practice activity) in enough detail for an agent to know whether the response will answer the learner's question. The single optional parameter and its default are already covered by 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'program' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-most-recent default and the enum of certifications. The description only adds the scoping phrase 'for one certification', which reinforces but does not extend the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific diagnostic content returned: weakest domains, blind spots, confidence-vs-correctness matrix, tagged miss reasons, pace/timing and practice activity, scoped to one certification. It implicitly separates itself from readiness tools by declaring 'Study signals, not a pass prediction' and 'never question content', though it never names the actual sibling (get_readiness, get_results, get_study_summary).

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given in natural-language form: use it when the learner asks why they miss questions, where their blind spots are, whether confidence matches results, which domains are weakest, or about pace/timing. It also states a negative boundary ('not a pass prediction'), but it does not name an alternative tool to route to instead, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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