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

Adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses the anonymous quota limit, that questions are excluded from ranking, and that each has a verified single answer. The readOnlyHint=false annotation is consistent with a quota-consuming operation, and the description explains that consumption. Lacks detail on what the response contains or what happens when the quota is exhausted.

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-loads the core action before the constraints and quota. Four compact sentences with little waste, though the quota and ranking notes could be tightened slightly.

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 state-consuming tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: quota, ranking exclusion, correctness guarantee, and language behavior. Only the return shape and quota-exhausted behavior are left 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 coverage is 100%, so both lang and attemptId are already fully documented. The description adds only a brief 'Pass lang hi for Hindi' hint, which restates the schema's enum explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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 (open one extra practice question) and clarifies scope with 'checked to have one correct answer.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'not today's shared drill' and 'not in the attempt ranking,' clearly separating it from get_daily_drill. The purpose is concrete but not maximally sharp.

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?

Provides clear usage context: a per-conversation quota ('2 practice questions today') and explicit exclusions ('not today's shared drill,' 'not in the attempt ranking'). It implies when to reach for it over the daily drill but does not name siblings directly as alternatives.

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