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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derived behavior: participant names are withheld and full results live at results_url, which shapes how the agent should present output. It doesn't mention access control or error behavior for an invalid or non-owned edit_url.

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 purpose and return contents, followed by the input provenance and an output caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so concretely (participant count, average score, pass rate, average time, top missed questions) while pointing to results_url for detail. For a one-parameter read tool, this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that the edit_url is private, that an id extracted from it also works, and which sibling tool produced it — useful semantics the schema does not convey.

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 (get) and resource (results for a Wellemo knowledge test) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: participants, average score, pass rate, average time, and most-missed questions. Clearly not test creation (create_knowledge_test) or discovery (search_tests), so the agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Specifies the prerequisite and provenance of the required input: the private edit_url (or its id) returned by create_knowledge_test, which establishes the create-then-read workflow. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against search_tests for different result-retrieval scenarios, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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