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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is handled. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the fallback path (generated questions when no curated set exists) and the cost of that path ('slower'), which is latency information an agent can act on.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary return value and followed by the fallback and use cases. No filler and nothing that restates the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the mention of 'questions and keys' signals the shape. The one-parameter, read-only nature is fully covered; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 100% and the single guideId parameter is already well documented with its format and origin (study-guide resource id from list_teaching_resources). The description's 'Accepts a guide id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 reading-check questions and keys for one Fiveable guide') and clarifies the scope as a single guide. It is distinguishable from adjacent siblings like get_guided_notes or get_questions_for_materials, though it does not name a sibling to route against, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

'Suitable for exit tickets, reading quizzes and guided reading handouts' gives downstream use context, which implies when the agent would want it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for retrieving similar question content.

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