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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that correct answers are returned, which is unusual and sensitive, and by explaining the permission rationale. It also reveals structural behavior such as question ordering and included fields, adding real context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and main contents, the second details question structure, and the third justifies the sensitive answer-key behavior. Every sentence earns its place without padding.

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 does a good job explaining what the return value contains: threshold, attempts, ordered questions, answer types, and correct answers. It lacks error cases, formatting details, or explicit permissions, but for a simple read-only getter it is nearly complete.

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?

The schema has one parameter, test_id, with 0% description coverage in the schema, and the tool description adds no explanation of what test_id refers to or how it should be obtained. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('the whole test'), then enumerates what is included: passing threshold, attempt count, and ordered questions with types and correct answers. This clearly distinguishes it from other getters like get_course or get_lesson.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever a complete test object with questions and answer keys is needed. It also provides audience context by noting the key belongs to school staff, not students. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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