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

Adds value beyond annotations: asynchronous/saved behavior, returns a scoring job id for status retrieval (linking to get_scoring_result), requestId idempotency semantics, and the one-included-score limit for signed-in students. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so this extra behavioral context is meaningful.

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 efficient sentences with no filler; front-loads the main action and consolidates exclusions and return behavior. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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?

Covers the asynchronous job model and idempotency well, and the output schema handles return values. However, with nine parameters and only 22% schema description coverage, several input semantics (business project fields, practice mode, prompt variant) are left unexplained.

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 coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate. It mentions object/feature areas (text, subparts, drawings/photos, LEQ, CSP code, Business references) and requestId retries, but does not clarify the many undocumented nested fields (e.g., businessProjectReference structure, businessProjectPracticeMode, promptVariantId) at a level that fully compensates.

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?

Specific verb 'Submits' + resource 'student's own response to a Fiveable practice FRQ' with scope (saved, asynchronous) and explicit exclusion of teacher assignments and exams. Distinguishes from sibling score_external_frq_response by the 'Fiveable practice FRQ' qualifier.

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?

States the exclusion (teacher assignments and exams) and implies use for practice FRQs, but does not name alternatives like score_external_frq_response or explain when to choose one over the other.

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