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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: output is ordered weakest-first by domain, it is appropriate before and after study runs, and anonymous callers receive an explanatory message rather than fabricated zeros. This auth-related disclosure is especially useful and is not present in any structured field.

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 concise sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the output and ordering, the second gives concrete invocation contexts, the third handles an important edge case. It is front-loaded with the core meaning and contains no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only, single-parameter progress tool, the description is complete: it conveys the grouping, ordering, expected timing, and auth behavior. The schema covers the only parameter, and annotations cover safety, so nothing needed for correct selection and invocation is missing. An output schema is not necessary to explain the return values at this level of detail.

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%: the single 'exam' parameter is fully documented with an enum and a reference to list_exams. The description does not need to add parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does reinforce that the tool covers 'one exam,' which aligns with the required parameter.

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 states the resource: the person's recorded history for one exam, organized by blueprint domain with weakest first, making it easy to distinguish from list_exams, check_answer, and get_practice_question. The title also adds a clear verb-and-object framing: 'See what this person has answered so far.' This is highly specific about what the tool provides.

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 gives explicit usage timing: call at the start of a study session to decide what to drill, and after a question run to show progress changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the stated contexts are clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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