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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the response deliberately omits answers/explanations, seeds make draws reproducible, and the question bank is curated and human-written. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate, though it does not cover every edge behavior such as unseeded randomness.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then covers the no-answers behavior, rationale, and alternative access. The 'WHY DELEGATE THIS' and ownership URL are somewhat extra but still useful for an agent deciding whether to use this tool or another route.

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 read-only draw tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what it draws, what the response lacks, how to make draws reproducible, and when to use a sibling. It does not describe the exact response structure, but the annotations and schema cover the main invocation needs.

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 schema already documents seed and count, and the description reinforces seed's purpose ('Pass a seed to make a set reproducible'). However, theme and difficulty are only given enums with no additional explanation, and at 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the missing 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Draw words-in-context practice questions from a curated bank.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling vocab_check by explicitly saying the response contains NO answers and NO explanations, so an agent can tell which tool to use for quizzing versus answer checking.

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 description provides clear routing guidance: call vocab_check for the answer and explanation of distractors, and use this tool when you want to quiz without leaking answers. It also explains why this tool is preferable to generated vocabulary questions and mentions the direct website alternative.

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