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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden yet says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what the evaluation returns, whether it grades/mutates the question, or what permissions or costs are involved. The phrase 'without accessibility-harming aria-hidden tricks' is cryptic and does not clarify behavior; it may imply the evaluation avoids certain mitigation techniques, but that is left to inference.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, which is good, but the front-loading is wasted because the specialized vocabulary arrives before any plain-language explanation of what the evaluation produces. Density here costs comprehension rather than saving it.

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?

A one-parameter tool with no output schema needs the description to explain the shape of the result, and this definition does not — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a boolean, a score, or a rewritten question. For a single-input evaluation tool the gap is containable but real.

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?

There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines question_text fully. The description adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond what the schema states, which is acceptable at the baseline but not additive.

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 verb 'Evaluates' and object 'exam or homework question' are stated, with the specificity that it targets cheat-vector vulnerability. However, the enumerated vectors ('38mm smartwatch cheat sheets', 'whispered classroom ASR lookups', '1-shot equation crop OCR') are idiosyncratic jargon that doesn't map cleanly to a recognizable evaluation output, and nothing distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like classify_k12_cheating_wire.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to pick for a different kind of content audit. The trailing 'without accessibility-harming aria-hidden tricks' hints at a constraint but reads as a caveat on method rather than a usage condition.

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