Get one exam

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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the response contains (settings, timing, share links, questions), which is particularly helpful since there is no output schema. It does not mention error cases or edge behavior, but the simplicity and annotations lower that need.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then compactly enumerates the return contents. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one required parameter, readOnlyHint=true, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It states what the tool returns, which is exactly what an agent needs to know in this context.

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?

The input schema documents the only parameter, assessment_id, with a description saying it is 'The exam paper (assessment) id.' The description's 'by id' merely echoes this without adding new meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('a single exam paper'), and the selection method ('by id'). It also lists the key contents returned (settings, timing, share links, questions), which makes its function unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ictexam_list_exams, which presumably handles multiple exams.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when a single exam paper is needed by its assessment_id. The contrast with list_exams is clear from the wording, but there is no explicit statement such as 'for all exams, use list_exams instead.' This is a minor omission, so it earns a strong 4 but not a 5.

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