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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: stable ID ordering, pagination continuity with unchanged filters, truncated return content, and a performance hint ('Cheap'). No statement contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences cover the core operation, filter options, pagination behavior, return shape, and cost profile. Every sentence contributes distinct information and the most important action is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states the resource, optional filters, pagination stability, and that results are summaries rather than full prompts. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here; an agent has enough guidance to select and invoke the tool 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?

With 71% schema coverage, the description compensates by tying frqType, unitId, and excludeIds to the stated filter behavior and by clarifying pagination semantics through 'unchanged filters continue pagination.' It does not fully elaborate on cursor mechanics, but the schema and the pagination statement provide enough operational meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('Fiveable's free-response (FRQ) practice prompts for an AP subject'), and names the optional filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_frq (single prompt retrieval) and other list tools, while also signaling it returns a filtered collection rather than full prompt bodies.

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 call this tool: to list FRQ practice prompts for a subject, with optional filters, pagination, and a lightweight result. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_frq for full prompt content, but 'Returns prompt ids and summaries rather than full prompts' and 'Cheap' imply the appropriate usage boundaries.

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