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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior annotations don't: the response bundles planning guidance, sample-answer links and image visuals, and it warns not to invent figures for Academic Task 1 visuals — a real output constraint.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the visual-figure warning is placed immediately after, where it is most likely to be read.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the question, planning guidance, sample-answer links and images. It stops short of saying how to discover valid task IDs, which is the remaining gap.

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 0% for the single taskId parameter, so the description is the only prose available; it says retrieval is 'by ID' but does not explain what the ID denotes or how to choose one. The enum values are self-describing topic slugs, which partly compensates.

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 verb and resource: retrieve one original practice question by ID, and enumerates what comes with it (planning guidance, annotated sample-answer links, image visuals for Academic Task 1). This distinguishes it from search_practice (finding tasks) and get_sample_answer (returning an answer).

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 mention of 'links to any annotated sample answers' hints that the answers themselves come from get_sample_answer, and the single-ID retrieval contrasts with search_practice. No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement is given.

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