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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the answer is withheld, questions are curriculum-mapped, and repeats are avoided via seen_ids — though it says nothing about what happens when the pool is exhausted or how questions are randomized.

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?

One front-loaded sentence defining the return value, one sentence of usage examples, one short instruction on seen_ids. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 returns and does so well (stem, options A-E, answer withheld). The only gap is that it never states that question ids come back in the response, which an agent needs in order to populate seen_ids on subsequent calls.

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 parameters are already documented, including the enumerated topic list. The description only adds the intent behind seen_ids ('to avoid repeats'), which the schema itself states, so it does not go meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 ('Returns a free FRCEM Final SBA practice question') and details the payload: consultant-level stem, options A-E, hidden answer, curriculum-mapped. The 'answer hidden' clause also implicitly separates it from the check_answer sibling.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('quiz me for FRCEM', 'SBA questions on trauma', 'help me revise') that make the intended request context unambiguous. It does not explicitly name check_answer as the follow-up tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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