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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating but idempotent operation. The description adds that it records progress and returns correctness/explanation, but doesn't explicitly mention that retries with the same requestId will not create duplicates, which is a key behavioral nuance for idempotency. However, the annotations cover the core, and the description adds useful context about the return value.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. It mentions the key parameters (question id) and the return value, but could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy with the title. Still, it's tight and structured well.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential purpose and expected result. It could mention idempotency behavior or references to check_practice_answer, but these are minor omissions given the schema richness. The tool is moderately complex with 4 params, but the description is adequate for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema, such as the intent field's purpose for privacy, which is already in the schema. It doesn't add new semantics, so a baseline 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 clearly states the action (records the signed-in student's answer), the resource (a multiple-choice practice question), and the outcome (counts toward progress, returns correctness and explanation). It also distinguishes itself from check_practice_answer, which likely just checks an answer without recording, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies it should be used when a student answers a practice question from get_practice_questions and wants it recorded for progress. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for checking without recording), but the sibling tool check_practice_answer suggests an alternative. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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