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

Annotations only declare the generic write/open-world profile; the description goes far beyond them by explaining the three returned URLs, the privacy asymmetry between take_url and edit_url, and the side effect that opening edit_url while logged in saves the test to the account. That last detail is a non-obvious behavioral consequence an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then behavior, then return values, then mandatory post-call instructions — a sensible priority order with no filler. The opening sentence is somewhat run-on and could be split, but every clause carries information.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: what is produced (three URLs), what the agent must do with them, privacy constraints, and the question-count ceiling. An agent can call this correctly and report results without further inference.

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 86%, so the enum values, question types, matching pairs, tolerance, and pass_score semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the 100-question cap (already encoded as maxItems) and the instruction to write questions in the user's language; it says nothing extra about time_limit, show_answers, or pass_score 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 and resource — create an online knowledge test / exam-style quiz with scoring on Wellemo — plus scope (questions you write, shareable link). The action is unmistakably distinct from get_test_results and search_tests, though the description never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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 concrete operating context: participants take it in the browser without registration, write questions in the user's language, up to 100 questions, and always surface take_url/edit_url while keeping edit_url private. It stops short of telling the agent when NOT to use it or pointing at search_tests to check for existing tests.

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