End-of-chapter exercises and worked examples (pointers)

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the remaining burden is light. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the return shape is IDs plus page numbers, and question text is deliberately omitted for NCTB copyright reasons, which prevents a caller from wrongly expecting content.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed immediately by the critical constraint and the workaround. No filler and nothing dangling.

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 6-parameter, fully optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers return content, the copyright limitation, and the alternative path adequately; per-parameter defaults are carried by the schema. The only minor gap is behavior when no id or chapter is supplied.

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 high at 83%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by decoding the cryptic enum values — mcq, cq, sq, num become multiple choice, creative/সৃজনশীল with parts ক-ঘ, short answer, and numerical. That mapping is meaning not present in the schema itself.

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 a specific verb-and-resource pair — listing end-of-chapter exercise items and in-chapter worked examples — and enumerates the four exercise kinds. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_topic or list_chapters by being about the exercise/example inventory rather than curriculum content.

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 gives an explicit follow-on route when the caller needs actual question text: read it via pdf_page, or author your own practice questions. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the other four siblings, but the resource scope makes that nearly self-evident.

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