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

Annotations already declare the mutation and open-world profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the fixed count of 5 questions, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about source-extraction cost, generation latency, or what happens when neither unit_id nor sources are supplied.

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 filler, with the trigger condition and the output quantity leading. The source enumeration is compressed into a single parenthetical rather than a bullet list.

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?

For a 13-parameter, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the two entry paths but omits the fallback behavior handled by auto_research (research generated when only a title is given) and the role of course_id in completion tracking. The rich schema compensates partially, but the description leaves an agent guessing about the no-source case.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already documented. The description echoes the exclusivity of unit_id vs. sources but adds no syntax, precedence, or format detail beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Generate 5 multiple-choice questions') and pins the output quantity, which lets an agent distinguish it from create_quiz or create_fill_blank without opening schemas. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks for multiple choice or MCQ') and the two supported input modes (unit_id vs. source-based). No exclusion or competing-tool routing is stated, so the agent must infer when to prefer edit_mcq or create_quiz.

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