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

The description discloses two things annotations cannot: that attempts are consumed per conversation rather than per person, which explains the non-readOnly, non-idempotent hints on a 'get' tool, and that output is deliberately limited. It does not say what happens when attempts run out, but the core behavioral profile is given.

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 capability stated first, then the output restriction, then the accounting rule. No filler, though the attempt-counting sentence duplicates schema text and could be trimmed.

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 burden of describing the return value, and it does so at the right level ('first step', no option or worked explanation). Combined with a fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call it; only the exhaustion/failure behavior is unstated.

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 the schema already documents 'drill', 'attemptId', and the 'lang' enum. The description only echoes the drill-type concept and repeats the per-conversation attempt accounting already stated in the attemptId field description, adding no new parameter detail.

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 the resource (a hint / first step for a ComputePrep drill question) and constrains what it returns ('Does not reveal the option or the worked explanation'), which separates it from submit_drill_answer. The phrasing 'Name the drill type and ask for the first step' is slightly imperative rather than declarative, but the purpose is still clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-answer nudge, and the note about not revealing answers hints it should be used before submit_drill_answer. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or named alternative, and no mention of ordering relative to get_daily_drill or get_practice_drill.

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