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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: problems without solutions are excluded and not counted, solutions exist only as GIFs at solution_image_url, and results are in book order. These details materially shape how the agent should interpret results.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then provides dense, relevant API details. Every sentence earns its place, especially the return-shape documentation, since there is no output schema.

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 fully documents the JSON response structure, field meanings, pagination, and filtering behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool or interpret its result is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates defaults and max values but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema; the useful extras concern output field meanings rather than parameter behavior.

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 clearly states that the tool lists solved problems of a specific paragraph (§), paginated and in book order. The qualifier 'Solved' and the paragraph scope differentiate it from siblings like list_chapters, list_paragraphs, and search_problems.

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 intended use is implied by the opening phrase and the schema points to list_paragraphs for paragraph numbering, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer list_problems over get_problem or search_problems, nor when not to use it.

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