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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a non-obvious behavioral contract: the tool returns questions but the agent itself must conduct the interview, feedback answers, and defer scoring to score_test. The prohibition on inventing answers is valuable behavioral disclosure. It does not cover side effects, idempotency, or return structure, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output, then the workflow, then the constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back; it does ('the questions and answer scale of a test'). It also maps the full pipeline to score_test. Minor gaps remain around the expected shape of collected answers, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% – both enum parameters (test, locale) are fully documented in the schema, including test length and locale defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: retrieve the questions and answer scale for a test. The name 'start_test' is ambiguous on its own, but the description disambiguates it (it fetches test content rather than executing anything). It names score_test as the follow-up step, though it never distinguishes itself from list_tests.

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 an explicit usage flow: ask questions one by one or in small groups, collect answer values, then call score_test. It also adds a clear directive ('Do not guess or invent answers for the user'), which is real guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a contrast with list_tests, so it falls short of a 5.

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