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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that login is not required and that the server persists no answers, with state round-tripped through the client. However, it omits per-action behavior (what start vs resume returns, retry semantics), so this stays a modest 3.

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 compact sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the statelessness note second; nothing is padded. It could be slightly clearer about the start/resume distinction without growing much.

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 7-parameter, nested-object, four-action tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not distinguish the four actions' behaviors or describe the returned payload beyond 'state'. An agent has enough to attempt a call but must infer action semantics from the enum.

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 86%, so the schema already documents testId, releaseId, state, seed, attemptId, and the answer object. The description only reinforces the state round-trip concept and adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 names three concrete operations (fetch next question without login, record the current answer, skip per booklet rules), so the agent understands this is a stepwise assessment-interaction tool. It is specific about the verbs but never positions itself against siblings like get_assessment or score_assessment.

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?

Usage is only implied: the three described operations map onto the action enum (start/resume/answer/skip), and 'no login' hints at the context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative tool.

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