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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses ordering, a 50-result cap, per-question summary contents, and the conditional inclusion of answer text. It also states the authentication requirement, which is meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences are tightly packed with no wasted wording. The return scope and ordering are front-loaded before the conditional answer-text detail and authentication requirement.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining what the result contains: attempts, best structure-check count, last date, and optional answer text. The pagination cap and auth prerequisite are also stated, leaving no major gaps for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds useful meaning for include_answer_text by clarifying that kept answer texts appear only when true, but it does not mention the optional question_id filter at all.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns saved practice attempts for the signed-in account, with scope details such as newest first and up to 50 results. It also names the per-question summary fields, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like save_practice.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite: sign-in with a PM Career Desk account that has an Interview Coach Pass. It does not explicitly compare when to use this versus siblings such as answer_mock_question or save_practice, but the retrieval context is clear.

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