Explain the free number-skills screening test

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it optionally returns item sets, describes scoring only in general terms, and explicitly does not score, take answers, or return a result. That extra behavioral context is exactly what an agent needs to avoid misusing the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then quickly covers return behavior and scope limits. It is dense but every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 two-parameter explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what is described, optional returns, general scoring scope, limits, and the crucial non-diagnostic caveat. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters and their allowed values. The description adds some useful context about optional item sets and the five games, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'describes the five screening games on dyscalculia.io' and summarizes what each measures. It also explicitly distinguishes this explanatory role from scoring or answering, so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does not do.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this to learn about the screening test, not to score anyone or submit answers. It gives a strong when-not boundary, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or comparison cases.

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