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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the question is pre-validated to have exactly one correct answer, that every conversation sees the same question, that attempts are counted per conversation rather than per person, and that Hindi is only served while the server language switch is on. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and none are in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with what it fetches, then return contents, then the negative scope, then the parameters. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the attempt-counting point is stated twice across description and 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return shape (exam, difficulty, expected time) and explicitly notes what is withheld (answer, explanation). It is slightly incomplete about the actual question text being returned and about what the agent should do with attemptId afterward, but the essentials are present.

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 schema already explains both lang and attemptId, including the per-conversation counting rule. The description's 'Pass lang hi for Hindi' and the attempt-count sentence largely restate the schema rather than adding new semantics.

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 ('Fetch today's ComputePrep drill') and pins the domain to quantitative aptitude for named exams. Siblings (get_drill_hint, get_practice_drill, submit_drill_answer) are clearly different operations, and the description makes clear this one only serves today's single question.

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?

Establishes the context of use ('today's drill', one fixed question per conversation) and excludes a wrong expectation by stating it does not return the answer or worked explanation. It does not explicitly name get_drill_hint or submit_drill_answer as the next step, leaving that routing to inference.

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