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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait not in structured data: the quota cost ('One call consumes one full-content preview for a caller without existing access'). It does not cover caching or pagination behavior, but the budget disclosure is real added 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what is returned before the usage hint and the cost caveat. Slightly terse rather than over-specified, but every sentence earns its place.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description closes the main remaining gaps (intended narrow use, quota consumption) though it leaves the two undocumented numeric parameters and sibling routing unaddressed.

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 67%, with query, intent, guideSlug and subjectSlug documented in-schema while maximumTokens and maximumSections carry only defaults. The description's 'one question' and 'small set' loosely gesture at the query and section limits but add no format or limits detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns ... Fiveable study-guide passages') and scopes it with 'relevant to one question' and 'a small set'. This is clear, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like get_study_guide or search_content, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

Gives usable scenarios ('narrow explanations, research questions and checking student notes'), which implies a narrow-lookup role versus broad retrieval. However it names no alternative tool and states no explicit when-not condition, so the routing decision against siblings remains implicit.

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