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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: it opens an interactive UI panel, connected accounts persist answers to Fiveable progress, and anonymous sessions are unsaved previews. That persistence distinction is genuinely useful.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool opens before the account-persistence caveat. No wasted phrasing, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 9 parameters and 33% schema coverage, the description leaves most invocation semantics undocumented.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions subjectSlug, limit, questionFormat, tier, unitId or topicId semantics, even though several of these are required or constrained (limit max 20, questionFormat default auto).

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?

States a specific verb ('Opens') and resource ('interactive multiple-choice practice panel') with detail about the question/answer/explanation components. This distinguishes it from data-fetching siblings like get_practice_questions, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies usage ('Students select answers directly in the panel') and notes connected vs anonymous practice, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to get_practice_questions, start_diagnostic, or submit_practice_answer. The routing decision is left to inference.

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