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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds two non-obvious behavioral facts: correct answers ARE included in the response, and it justifies this via an access-control rule tied to role. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about failure behavior if the test is out of scope.

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?

Front-loaded with what the call returns, then the question type vocabulary, then the authorization rule. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler, though the access-control sentence is slightly dense and could be split.

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 correctly compensates by describing the returned structure and even enumerating the question-type values. Combined with the role-based scope rule, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the test_id parameter remains unexplained.

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 a single parameter (test_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden but adds nothing about what test_id is or where to obtain it. The name is largely self-evident, so it remains a minimum-viable 3 rather than a failure.

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 gives a specific resource and enumerates its contents (pass threshold, attempt count, ordered questions with type and correct answers), so the agent knows exactly what a successful call yields. It does not reference any sibling tool (e.g. create_test, get_lesson) to draw the retrieval boundary, 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?

It states who may retrieve which test (owner/methodologist get any test in the school; others only their course test), which is useful authorization context. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as question_stats or review_queue, leaving usage implied rather than prescribed.

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