get_practice_question

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

The description is a read operation, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so no contradiction. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions that it returns both a question and its review version, which is some useful detail. But it doesn't describe any limits, pagination, or content structure. Since the annotations already cover the safety profile, a 3 is reasonable.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could be more informative without adding much length. It wastes no words, so it earns a 4.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (1 param, output schema present) and annotations cover safety. The description is minimal but perhaps adequate for a straightforward read operation. However, it does not explain the concept of 'review version' or how the output might differ from a normal practice question, which could be important for correct invocation. Given the presence of an output schema, the return value is likely documented there, so the description does not need to explain that. Overall, it is barely sufficient, so a 3.

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 the single parameter 'entry_id' as a string. The description does not add any extra detail about the parameter (e.g., format, source, or required context). With 100% coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('practice question') and mentions it also returns a 'review version'. This is specific enough to understand the basic purpose, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'check_practice_answer' or 'record_practice_review' which also deal with practice questions. The distinction is not explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of what the 'review version' is for or when an agent should prefer this over 'check_practice_answer' or 'record_practice_review'. The description leaves the usage context entirely implicit.

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