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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds valuable return-content context beyond annotations: it lists the fields returned and explains the accuracy score scale (0-2, mean of 3 runs).

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?

The definition is compact and front-loads the key fact: one benchmark question by ID. The remainder is a dense but useful enumeration of return content. It is slightly fragmentary and list-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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, so the description appropriately explains the returned content in detail. For a one-parameter retrieval tool with safety annotations, it is nearly complete; only minor behavior such as invalid-ID handling is unstated.

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%, and the single id parameter is documented with the same examples used in the description. The description repeats the ID examples but adds no new constraint or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies a retrieval of one benchmark question by ID and enumerates what the response includes (task, search call, parameters, answer key, API returns, accuracy score). It distinguishes itself implicitly from list_questions by emphasizing a single question by ID, though it does not name the sibling or explicitly contrast them.

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 implied: an agent should call this when it needs a single benchmark question identified by ID. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives such as list_questions.

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