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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It frames the tool as a pure accept-and-return computation and lists what the caller receives, implying no destructive side effects or data mutation. It does not explicitly state whether answers are persisted or describe error behavior, but for a stateless scoring tool the disclosure is adequate.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it accepts and returns, when to call it, and how to present results. The empathy guidance is relevant and concise, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description compensates by enumerating the return values and giving a sequencing precondition. It also adds tone guidance for a sensitive result. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly connect to start_student_protection_readiness_assessment or other siblings, but the 12-answer precondition makes the workflow position clear enough.

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%, with each q1–q12 already containing a category tag and full question text. The description adds only that there are 12 answers scored 1–4, which is redundant with the schema. It provides no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 names the exact action ('Accepts the 12 answers... and returns'), specifies the resource (student protection readiness assessment), and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling start_* tool by requiring all 12 answers to already be collected. The output fields are enumerated, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Call this after collecting all 12 answers from the user.' This effectively tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and implies it should not be used before the assessment is complete. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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