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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses exactly what is returned: titles, short descriptions, take counts, and a link to take each test. It also warns that questions are not returned and instructs the agent to give the user the links, which is meaningful behavioral guidance for generating a response. It does not cover edge cases such as empty results, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence adds value: the first states what is searched, the second states what is returned, and the third prevents the agent from expecting question content and tells it how to respond.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the catalog being searched, the fields returned, the fact that questions are excluded, and the instruction to provide links. It does not mention empty-result handling or pagination behavior, but no output schema exists and the remaining gaps are minor.

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 schema already documents both query and limit, including the default and maximum for limit. The description adds only the topic framing for query and does not add format, syntax, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public Wellemo catalog of ready-made tests and quizzes by topic.' That is far more informative than the name alone and clearly distinguishes this from create_knowledge_test and get_test_results by emphasizing a read-only catalog search. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting the sibling tools, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description makes the intended use clear: search by topic to find ready-made tests, then give the user the links. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to an alternative, but the surrounding context makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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