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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it consumes one full-content preview for free callers unless access exists, and it warns that a full guide is expensive at 3-8k tokens. This significantly helps an agent anticipate cost and access side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by suitability and cost context. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 a rich input schema, annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the important non-obvious context: Markdown output, access/preview consumption, token cost, and when to use the tool. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool appropriately.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value over the schema, such as noting that guideSlug accepts a close approximation of a title, but the schema already documents canonical references and title matching.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the full text of one Fiveable AP study guide as Markdown. It effectively differentiates this tool from siblings like get_frq or get_cheatsheet by emphasizing 'full text' and 'Markdown', though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a student asks to learn or review a topic. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives like get_cheatsheet for concise review, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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