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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds the important context that a batchId is minted (explaining the non-read-only flag) and that answers are deliberately withheld, which tells the agent it must later use answer_question or look_up_answer. It does not say whether batches expire or must be closed with end_batch.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the returned payload (batchId, questions without answers) front-loaded in the second sentence. Nothing repeats the title or restates the name.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('Returns a batchId and the questions WITHOUT answers'). The remaining hole is lifecycle: whether a batch is persisted, how long it lives, and whether end_batch must follow.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that domainId scopes dealing to a single building but adds no new syntax, range, or default information beyond the schema.

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 ('Deal a batch of practice questions') plus scope ('one domain (building)', 'at the player's current tier'), which an agent can act on directly. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling deal_review, so the practice-vs-review distinction must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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 implies the context (a player in a town, at their current tier) but never says when to call this instead of deal_review, learn_question, or answer_review. With a sibling list where deal_review is an obvious near-duplicate, the missing routing rule is a real gap.

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