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

Annotations already declare a read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return context — ordering (newest first) and what each paper includes (questions, time, paper page, PDF when available, online test link) — but says nothing about result volume limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the return contents follow. The parenthetical example list is slightly heavy but each item is illustrative rather than redundant.

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 only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably well. The remaining gap is operational detail such as how many papers are returned and whether large exam results are truncated.

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 baseline is 3, and the description rightly does not re-explain the parameters. It does contribute the framing that exactly one exam is targeted and that the tool is exam-scoped, which reinforces the required parameter's role beyond the schema's own wording.

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 resource with scope: previous year question papers for exactly one exam, with concrete exam examples. It is distinguishable from list_exams and list_practice_sets by the resource named, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving past papers for a named exam rather than practice sets or exam metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the sibling tools that cover adjacent needs.

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