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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return content (paragraph notes, vocabulary) and a meaningful caveat that these are illustrative, not officially scored scripts. It does not cover error behavior for an invalid sampleId.

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: the core action first, then the clarifying caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is 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 no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does (annotated sample with paragraph notes and vocabulary). Combined with the ID provenance and the scoring caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 0% and the single parameter is an opaque enum of long slugs, so the description carries the burden. It does so by explaining the ID's origin ('from get_practice_task'), which is the key semantic the schema lacks; the enum values themselves are largely self-descriptive.

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 ('Read one original annotated sample answer by ID') and names the payload (paragraph notes, useful vocabulary). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_practice_task, analyze_writing, and calculate_band_score.

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 provenance guidance — the ID comes 'from get_practice_task' — and a scope caveat that samples 'are not officially scored scripts', implicitly routing scoring to calculate_band_score. It stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this over search_practice or analyze_writing.

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