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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds value by explicitly stating the non-persistence behavior and the anonymous-preview capability. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and output, and the second sentence isolates the most important behavioral caveat about saving progress.

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?

Given the simple operation, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it checks, what it returns, and how it behaves regarding saved progress. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, with all three parameters already documented, including answer format and questionId source. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a precise verb ('checks'), a specific resource ('one multiple-choice practice answer'), and the expected result ('returns correctness plus the Fiveable explanation'). It also distinguishes itself from a progress-saving submission path by explicitly noting it does not save progress.

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 clearly indicates this works during an anonymous preview and does not save progress, while noting that a signed-in answer submission is required for saved progress. It does not explicitly name submit_practice_answer as the alternative, but the boundary is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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