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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the 40-item cap, that stimuli are required context, that answer keys are teacher-only material, and that the call consumes the content budget.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what comes back, the 40 cap, the budget cost) are front-loaded. Every clause 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 formatting need not be described. Combined with the cap, budget cost, stimulus and teacher-only answer-key notes, this is nearly complete; only ID validation and error/partial-result behavior are unstated.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by surfacing the 40-item limit and the composite return. It says nothing about subjectSlug or the purpose enum, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 gives a specific verb (returns) and resource (bank questions with answer keys, explanations, stimuli, attribution) plus a hard cap of 40. It is clearly a by-ID content-fetch tool, distinct from search_question_bank, though it never names the sibling that produces the IDs.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema (not the description) tells the agent IDs come from search_question_bank, and the budget note hints that calls should be deliberate. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_question_bank or get_guided_notes/get_study_guide guidance.

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