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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies what is returned (formats, access requirements, links) and explicitly excludes questions and answer keys. It does not address auth or rate limits, but those are less critical here.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. Purpose and exclusion are front-loaded, followed immediately by parameter usage guidance. Structure is clear and efficient.

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 a 2-parameter, optional, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the return content, clarifies the role of both parameters, and notes the exclusion of questions/answer keys. A minor gap is that it does not specify behavior when called with no parameters, but that is not critical.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the semantic role of both parameters: subjectSlug selects a subject for version choices, and unitNumber verifies that unit's current bank and standard format. It does not repeat format constraints (pattern, max) already enforced by the schema.

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 ('Find') and resources ('Fiveable exam formats, access requirements and website links'), and adds an explicit exclusion ('without questions or answer keys') that helps distinguish it from question-bank siblings. It does not name an alternative sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 parameter-level guidance: use subjectSlug for version choices and add unitNumber to verify a unit's current bank and format. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it, leaving usage context implied.

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