read_study_record

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds real behavioral context: the two-layer return shape (outer id/revision/review_status/exercise_validation vs inner record), that a snapshot read omits live checks, that nonexistent revisions are rejected with no fallback, and that history may contain answers. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 core usage rule is front-loaded and each sentence adds a distinct fact (return shape, snapshot semantics, error behavior, alternatives). It is dense and somewhat run-on, with several clauses packed into single sentences, but there is little waste.

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 read tool this is complete: reading behavior, revision branching, return-layer structure, rejection behavior, and the alternative tool are all covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param meaning, and it does for the non-obvious 'revision' (default/omitted = live current, positive integer = frozen snapshot, cannot be used to increment and write back). It does not describe record_id, though that parameter is self-evident.

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 (read a study record) and clarifies what is read: the current question plus real-time checks. It also routes independent re-practice to the sibling read_practice_prompt. Sibling differentiation against read_document/read_element/review_study_record is not spelled out, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given ('read before updating'), with the key branch stated up front: omit revision to get the current version and live checks, pass a positive integer revision to read a saved snapshot. It names the alternative for re-practice (read_practice_prompt) and warns current_revision cannot be used to write an old record back.

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