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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: questions span exam areas, answers are hidden, each question has a question_id, and scoring produces per-area results, pass-mark comparison, and a next step. Minor gaps remain around randomness or exact weighting for non-Part 107 exams.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with 'Starts a free readiness diagnostic' and then providing output and scoring details. It is a single long sentence with no filler, though a slight structural break could improve readability.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call contract: what is returned, that answers are hidden, that question IDs enable scoring, and what the scored result contains. It omits a precise output shape, but the information needed to invoke the tool successfully is present.

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 50%: exam is well documented, but count only has min/default/max. The description partially compensates by mentioning 10-20 questions and Part 107 weights, but it does not explicitly map count to the number of questions returned or elaborate on behavior for each exam enum value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Starts') and resource ('readiness diagnostic for an FAA knowledge test'), and clearly states the output (10-20 quiz questions with hidden answers). It is distinguishable from siblings like practice_questions and score_diagnostic, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 the usage context: start a free diagnostic, get questions, then score them to see results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus practice_questions or score_diagnostic, nor does it offer exclusions or alternatives.

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