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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description only gestures at returned content, without saying whether a wrong/missing question_id errors, what the 'note' field shape is, or how large the embedded theory text is — and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but it is grammatically incomplete and front-loads returned fields rather than the purpose. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so only loosely — the relationship between the answer, the 'note that names the rule', and the theory section is never made concrete. Combined with zero usage guidance for a tool sitting among three similarly-scoped siblings, an agent is left guessing.

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%: question_id (with example 'bs-001') and lang (en default, ru, English fallback) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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?

The text is a noun-phrase fragment that restates the title rather than naming an action: it lists contents ('a question with its answer, the note that names the rule and the full text of the theory section') without saying 'retrieve the explanation for a question'. It hints at the payload but gives no verb and no distinction from siblings like get_theory or check_answer, which plausibly return overlapping material.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus check_answer, get_theory, or get_questions. With a required question_id, an agent cannot infer whether this is the right tool for verifying an answer or for reading theory.

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