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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding what they cannot: the output is Persian fa-IR RTL text sourced from public fekrestan.com pages, and it deliberately excludes puzzle content and in-app exercise answers. That language/directionality and source detail is genuinely useful for an agent assembling a response, though it does not address response size or structure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the content inventory before the constraints. The standalone 'No puzzles.' slightly duplicates 'No answers to in-app exercises.' and could be merged, but no sentence is wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the payload, and it does enumerate the sections returned plus the language and source. An agent knows what it will get and what it will not, though nothing is said about volume or pagination of the returned text.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond noting that the result covers both entry tracks (grade 7 and grade 10) without a selector argument. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 names a specific resource (exam-prep overview) and enumerates exactly what it contains: unit families, what each unit trains, verified puzzle counts, and the FAQ. It also scopes it to entry-to-grade-7 and grade-10 tracks, which separates it from generic siblings like get_site_overview or get_subject. It stops short of naming a sibling tool it should be preferred over, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 optional exam-prep sections' hints at context (optional supplementary material for parents/teachers) but never states when to call this versus get_station_overview or get_roadmap. The negative scoping ('No puzzles', 'No answers to in-app exercises') functions as a partial exclusion, steering the agent away for exercise content, but no positive trigger conditions or alternatives are given.

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