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

Annotations only declare the write/non-destructive profile; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the ~3-minute wait, the three distinct outcome shapes (created, creating, outcome_unknown), the duplicate/in-flight case, and idempotency-key forwarding and dedupe semantics. This is exactly the latency and failure-mode context an agent needs before invoking a long-running generator.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause carries operative information (latency, outcome states, retry path, idempotency). The second sentence is dense and semicolon-heavy, which slightly taxes parsing, but there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it usefully summarizes the possible states and the retry escape hatch. Combined with the latency bound and idempotency rules, an agent has everything needed to call this safely on the first attempt.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by stating that artifact_ids must be 1-10 project source artifacts and that idempotency_key is forwarded as Idempotency-Key and that identical retries dedupe even without a key. It does not restate the type enum or project_id semantics, but it enriches the two parameters that most affect behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (Studocu quiz or mockExam) plus the input scope (1-10 project source artifacts). It is readily distinguishable from the closest sibling create-project and from get-project-state, which it names explicitly in the retry path.

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?

Gives a concrete recovery instruction: on outcome_unknown (timeout or in-flight duplicate), check get-project-state before retrying, and notes that retries without a key still dedupe. It lacks any explicit when-to-use framing versus the other creation/write tools, but the guidance it does give is actionable.

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