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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing exactly what is returned: the correct answer, the explanation, and UK guideline references. It stops short of saying whether grading is idempotent or whether repeat calls re-reveal the answer, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states both the action and the return content with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description is essentially sufficient, and with no output schema it usefully previews the return fields. Only a light note on grading semantics or the relationship to get_practice_question is missing.

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 (answer as a single A-E letter, question_id from the practice question) are already fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning about formats or constraints beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') plus a specific resource ('the user's answer to an FRCEM practice question') and even describes the return payload. It is readily distinguishable from the only sibling, get_practice_question, by implication (fetch vs. grade), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 implied — call this after the user has selected an answer to an FRCEM practice question — but the description never states prerequisites (e.g. that a question_id from get_practice_question is required) or when not to call it, such as before the user has answered.

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