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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds useful return details (right/wrong, key, explanation, retire streak), which is valuable because there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose side effects such as recording the answer or affecting review scheduling/retirement.

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 description is two compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds return-value information that is useful in the absence of an output schema.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and return values. It is incomplete on when to use it relative to answer_question and on the side effects of submitting an answer, such as whether the question is retired or the streak changes.

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 only 50%: the 'chosen' parameter is well documented, but 'questionId' has no description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what questionId refers to or where it comes from.

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 and resource: submit the player's answer to a review question. It clearly identifies review-mode question answering, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling answer_question tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus answer_question or other sibling tools. The phrase 'review question' implies the review-mode context, but the agent must infer that distinction.

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