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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: stable ID ordering, that pagination is filter-stable, and that the payload is lightweight summaries plus a cost signal ('Cheap').

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 that front-load the resource, then filters, then pagination and return shape; the trailing 'Cheap.' is terse but earns its place as a cost cue.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description still covers pagination semantics and what is returned. Minor omission: courseVariant and intent are not acknowledged, though the schema documents both.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description groups frqType, unit, and excludeIds as filters and explains cursor continuation, but adds no syntax or detail for intent, courseVariant, or limit, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 (Lists), a specific resource (Fiveable's free-response practice prompts), and the scope (an AP subject), which clearly separates it from the singular get_frq and the broader search_question_bank.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what filters are available and that 'unchanged filters continue pagination,' and it hints at the alternative by noting it returns 'prompt ids and summaries rather than full prompts' (i.e. use get_frq for full text). It does not, however, name a sibling or state exclusions directly.

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