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

Read-only and idempotent behavior is already covered by annotations, so the description earns credit for what annotations cannot express: the result includes answers and explanations and must not be revealed before the user answers. The 'up to five' ceiling is also useful, though its relationship to the count parameter is left unclear.

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 short sentences with the return payload front-loaded and the interaction rule following. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the reveal instruction could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description correctly stays brief there. The gap is on the input side: with both parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should have specified how to identify the exam and how count interacts with the 'up to five' cap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, yet it never names or explains either parameter. It implies an exam argument without saying whether it is an ID, slug, or name, and 'up to five' hints at a size limit without acknowledging that count is caller-settable or what its bounds are.

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 ('return ... free sample questions for an exam') plus the payload (correct option letters and explanation). This clearly separates it from siblings like check_answer and get_exam_details, which do not fetch question sets.

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 gives a presentation workflow (show question and options, let the user answer, then reveal), which is real usage guidance. But it never states when to call this versus check_answer, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the choice to inference.

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