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

With only destructiveHint=false as annotation, the description adds extensive behavior: login/entitlement gating, needs_login/locked responses, form without answers, server-held key, and proctoring expectations. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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 dense but every sentence adds value—no filler. It is well-structured with an em-dash flow that is readable despite the technical details.

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?

Despite minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, gating, security restrictions, and the next step. It is self-contained and complete for a tool with a rich output schema.

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 has zero descriptions for parameters, and while the description mentions course in the workflow, it does not explicitly map auth_token to the gating behavior. Some compensation exists, but full parameter clarity is not provided.

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 starts the course's scored practice exam, a specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like daily_drill and submit_exam by emphasizing the scoring and full-length mock format.

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 provides a clear workflow: start the exam, collect letters, then call submit_exam(course, answers). It also gives an instruction on what not to do (never reveal answers), but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of an alternative.

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