Sigma Prep Math Worksheets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context: output is a PDF, an answer-key copy is produced, and each call is non-deterministic ('Every call gives a fresh version'), which implies the version parameter is the way to reproduce a sheet. It does not mention any auth or rate-limit constraints.

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 short sentences with no waste: what it produces, what accompanies it, and the prerequisite. The prerequisite is placed last, after the agent has the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return artifacts (PDF plus answer-key copy) and the non-determinism behavior. Combined with 100% schema coverage and the search_worksheets prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents count, topic, levels, version, and questionTypes. The description's 'every call gives a fresh version' lightly reinforces the version parameter's reproducibility purpose, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Make a new printable math worksheet'), the output format (PDF), and a distinguishing detail (separate answer-key copy). An agent can tell this apart from search_worksheets, which is named as the lookup sibling.

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 says 'Get the topic id from search_worksheets first,' which routes the agent to the correct sibling before calling this tool. It gives clear context but no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of what to do if the topic is already known.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (topic id, levels, question types) and the workflow position, though it says nothing about result count, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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 sentences, zero waste. The purpose and domain scope come first, and the workflow instruction is front-loaded in the second sentence with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description must carry return-value context, and it does name the key returned fields (topic id, levels, question types). It stops short of describing result volume or what an empty result means, which is a minor gap for a search tool feeding create_worksheet.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema with examples, making 3 the baseline. The description's course list loosely previews valid course values but adds no syntax or matching-semantics detail beyond 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 resource (Sigma Prep math worksheet topics) and pins the domain with an explicit course list. It also names its sibling create_worksheet, so an agent can distinguish search from creation without opening either schema.

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 gives the when: "Use this first to get the topic id, the levels it offers and its question types, then call create_worksheet." This is a clear sequencing rule with the alternative named and the condition that selects it.

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