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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds non-obvious scope: the response bundles related material — past exam papers for the same grade and similar open exams — not just the requested record. That warns an agent the payload is broader than the id suggests, though it says nothing about size or truncation of those related lists.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and identifier first, then the enumerated contents. No filler, no repeated field names from the schema.

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 no output schema, the description rightly spends its words describing the return payload, and it covers the main sections an agent would need to know about. Minor gap: it does not indicate that the related papers/similar exams are supplementary and may be empty, which matters for interpreting results.

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 both id and the lang enum are fully documented in the schema, including the default language. The description adds only 'by id' and nothing about the language switch or its effect on labels, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Full details of one recruitment exam by id') and enumerates what the detail payload covers, which distinguishes it from the list-oriented search_concours. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer that this is the single-record lookup counterpart to search.

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?

'by id' implies it is the follow-up to a search result, and the schema reinforces that by pointing at the id field of search_concours. However, the description itself gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions (e.g. use get_exam_paper for a single paper), and no prerequisites.

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