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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns correctness, the correct letter/text, explanation, and citations. It does not disclose any rate limits, auth requirements, or edge cases (e.g., behavior for invalid answer formats), but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 core action and return value, then a compact list of accepted answer formats. No wasted words.

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 read-only, idempotent grading tool with 2 fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and what input formats are accepted. It doesn't specify error behavior for invalid question_id or answer, but that is a minor gap given the annotations and schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a small clarification that answer accepts a letter (A/B/C), a number 1-3, or the option text, which mirrors the schema but reinforces the accepted formats. This is baseline 3 territory since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool grades one answer to a Rotate Pilot practice question identified by question_id, and lists the return contents (correctness, correct letter/text, explanation, citations). This distinguishes it from siblings like practice_questions (which presumably fetches questions) and score_diagnostic (which scores a broader diagnostic).

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 implies usage: call this when you have a question_id and an answer to check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of grading a single answer is clear enough. Sibling names like practice_questions and score_diagnostic suggest broader flows, but no explicit exclusion is given.

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