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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicate a safe read operation, but the description adds valuable behavioral information: the meaning of numbers next to column names, that unspecified columns are rejected, and that the same blockType differs per Riddle type. This goes beyond what annotations provide, enhancing the agent's understanding of the output and constraints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. It uses clear sentences to convey essential details without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, making it appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's purpose and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns (block types, columns, minimum counts), the constraints (unspecified columns rejected), and the dependence on riddleType. It also ties to usage context (before adding items), providing a complete picture for an agent.

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 covers the only parameter (riddleType) with a clear description of the allowed values. The description adds context about how riddleType affects the output (same blockType differs per type), which enriches the understanding of why the parameter matters, though it doesn't add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the extra context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the tool lists every blockType valid for a question bank of a given Riddle type, along with the exact columns shape. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that it provides the format expected by questionBank_addItem/updateItem, which is unique among the questionBank tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this before the first questionBank_addItem for a bank not yet populated, and explains why (no universal item shape, differences per Riddle type). This is clear when-to-use guidance that also implies it's not needed for already-populated banks.

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