evaluate_answer

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral facts: no question bank is bundled (all rubric data must come from the caller) and the returned result is not an official exam grade (a reliability caveat). It does not explain scoring/partial-credit behavior or how missing concepts are treated, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated evaluation tool.

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-loads the action in the first sentence, then lists rubric fields compactly, then two short caveat sentences. No filler, though the field enumeration is dense and could be tidier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given the free-form rubric object, the field enumeration is exactly the missing structured information; the only residual gap is the meaning/format of the 'answer' string.

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 0% and rubric is an untyped object with additionalProperties:true, so the schema alone is nearly useless. The description compensates well by enumerating the rubric keys and their shapes (required_concepts 1-50 strings, accepted_synonyms keyed by concept, numeric_requirements {value, unit?, tolerance?}, required_count). The 'answer' parameter is never explained, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: check an answer against a caller-supplied rubric of concepts, synonyms, and numeric requirements. The purpose is unambiguous even without siblings to distinguish from. It stops short of 5 only because no alternative/scope framing (e.g., what kinds of answers are supported) is given.

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?

Usage is implied by 'caller-provided concepts, synonyms, and numeric requirements' and by the note that no question bank is bundled, which tells the agent it must supply the full rubric. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool named, so this is minimum-viable context.

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